On 01/07/2014 01:53, Saleem Abdulrasool wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/07/2014 01:28, Saleem Abdulrasool wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote:
On 23/06/2014 23:02, Reid Kleckner wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Alp Toker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Please split out and name the new dotted form something like
"-msc-full-version" to avoid ambiguity.
I was inclinded to overload the option because it means we don't have to diagnose this
case: -fmsc-version -fmsc-full-version=17.00.0. We just do the obvious thing of
"last one always wins". Diagnosing the conflict isn't too hard, though, so
let's just split the options and do exactly that in the driver.
Saleem,
Do you plan to make that change? If not I guess I can look into it..
Yes, I was waiting for a response to my last message about what we want to call
the option.
The proposal was -msc-full-version because it aligns at least a little with the
documentation on MSDN.
The reason is that this blocks some other fixes I have related to -msc-ver and
the diagnostic engine.
Ill call it -fmsc-version-ex then for now and we can bike shed it later if we
want.
What does -ex signify? Not familiar with that naming scheme.
Extended. Its a play off of Windows API naming conventions :-).
Ah :-)
Anyway, it seems best to go with the working name -msc-full-version unless
something better comes along.
Except that this would also define _MSC_VER so it is slightly misleading.
The input format is a full, dotted version I think the name makes
perfect sense. Whatever macros it actually defines is, and always has
been, an implementation detail and the name is only tangentially related
to that the way I see it.
Alp.
Alp.
Due to
bitwidth limitations of the option, it is currently not
possible to define a
revision value.
What would be the practical burden of encoding this as 64-bits, or
two 32-bit fields (one representing _MSC_BUILD and another for the
rest)?
Or is there a different plan to resolve the 32-bit encoding FIXMEs
introduced in the commit? I suspect that getting the
representation right will simplify computations below for free.
LangOptions are defined as unsigned bitfields, so we can't widen the full
version number to 64 bits without some disruptive changes. Lots of LangOpts
shouldn't even be bitfields, for example. If we supported that, we could
easily make the full version a 64-bit int. Failing that, we could split the
build number into it's own option.
Yeah, that could work. I actually think the optimal representation may involve
two separate 32-bit fields, because that's the boundary at which the Microsoft
documentation and cl.exe appear to make the split. Will investigate both
options if Saleem isn't already on the case.
Alp.
--
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.nuanti.com/&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=CchYc4lrV44%2BZqxZADw0BQ%3D%3D%0A&m=EeMVGsbHKXIgB8SD08%2BWl%2BFX%2F%2BRXJCxU2hPPg2SqMzQ%3D%0A&s=23c0413d37aace07c97e4f68ae58f9501c3c38ef42d84f04ea2317f2b158f3e7
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=CchYc4lrV44%2BZqxZADw0BQ%3D%3D%0A&m=EeMVGsbHKXIgB8SD08%2BWl%2BFX%2F%2BRXJCxU2hPPg2SqMzQ%3D%0A&s=cbfe3346795a5f2236a51b67cac8e94a8d044ff0b89685a3b504ce211c1a2593
--
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.nuanti.com/&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=CchYc4lrV44%2BZqxZADw0BQ%3D%3D%0A&m=uS6tc6Kpb6G0TJZ7L%2BzXxFMKmWnN%2FWtSVvEk4dOowRI%3D%0A&s=2a41880c267356cdb70484821cef9f014dc0ab23b5672e7d9306340e07f850a1
the browser experts
--
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
