On Dec 2, 2009, at 6:29 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Ted Kremenek wrote: >>> Indeed. For those we can have separate has_feature entries. >> >> And is a portable header suposed to do this: >> >> #ifdef __cplusplus >> #if __has_feature(cxx_exceptions) >> #define HAVE_EXCEPTIONS >> #endif >> #else >> #if __has_feature(c_exceptions) >> #define HAVE_EXCEPTIONS >> #endif >> >> ? :-( > > Hi Mike, > > I'm not certain what you're driving at. This is all polish; we can define a > '__has_feature(exceptions)' that does the "right thing", based on whatever > definition we thinks makes sense. > > Ted
Put another way, what do you suggest is the "right thing"? _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
