Like I said, it's a weak preference. ;-) However, "it makes it easier to do nonstandard things" isn't really a ringing endorsement for making this change be consistent with GCC in my book. At the end of the day, there's int8_t and uint8_t definitions, which do the standard thing, and don't require messes (that I'm aware of).
When this discussion comes up about supporting nonstandard things from MSVC, the usual watermark is: are there system headers we can't compile without this change? ~Aaron On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:08 PM, JF Bastien <[email protected]> wrote: > r211657 made it easier to support newlib, makes the interface clang provides > more uniform (there are already similar macros), and more compatible with > GCC. I'd argue they're standard macros because of their naming :-) > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 07:02:01PM -0400, Aaron Ballman wrote: >> > I have a very slight preference for (1) over (2) -- I don't see the >> > benefit to guaranteeing those nonstandard macros as being part of >> > Clang's interface. >> >> Supporting char vs unsigned char gets messy without out. >> >> Joerg >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
