On Apr 29, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote:
>
>
> Début du message réexpédié :
>
>> De : Jean-Daniel Dupas <[email protected]>
>> Date : 26 avril 2011 09:53:42 HAEC
>> À : Peter Collingbourne <[email protected]>
>> Cc : [email protected]
>> Objet : Rép : [cfe-commits] [PATCH] _has_feature support for new C1X
>> features.
>>
>>
>> Le 26 avr. 2011 à 01:02, Peter Collingbourne a écrit :
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 09:15:09PM +0200, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote:
>>>> As clang start to implements C1X, it may be useful to extend __has_feature
>>>> to support the new implemented features.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a patch that add 'c_static_assert' and 'c_generic_selection', and
>>>> a test case similar to the one used for c++0x.
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds 'c_generic_selection', but I don't know the status of this
>>>> feature. If it is not ready yet, this part should be commented.
>>>
>>> Hi Jean-Daniel,
>>>
>>> We already have __has_feature(generic_selections).
>>
>> My bad, I missed it.
>> I moved it next to "static_assert", so it would be easier to find what C1X
>> extensions are already declared here.
>>
>>> Prefixing C features with c_ is unprecedented (and it would of course
>>> be a bad idea to rename the existing C features/extensions) so I think
>>> that for the sake of consistency the C1X static assert feature should
>>> just be called "static_assert".
>>
>> Of course, it would definitively be better to keep it consistent.
>>
>>> Also, C1X static assertions are supported as an extension in all
>>> languages so the feature should not be predicated on the C1X language
>>> option.
>>
>>
>> Here is a patch that simply add "static_assert" and declare it enabled
>> unconditionally.
>>
>
>
> Is there someone to review (and apply) this minor change ?
Sorry I missed this original discussion, but I actually disagree with Peter's
suggestions. Both C++ and Objective-C feature-test identifiers have language
prefixes (cxx_, objc_), and features that come from a particular revision of
that language are tied to the appropriate LangOpts bit. I don't see any reason
for C to deviate. Any claim they had about being a common subset evaporated
with VLAs and their _Keyword_uglification strategy for C++ features :)
For example, consider "static_assert": __has_feature(static_assert) doesn't
mean that "static_assert" is a keyword, which is what one would expect from a
common feature. It means that we have the C1x _Static_assert. I'd far rather
have the unambiguous __has_feature(c_static_assert).
With generic selections, I'd far rather have
__has_feature(c_generic_selections) than what we currently have. However, we
may be stuck with the name since it's been in the tree for a while. Peter, do
you have any idea of whether anyone depends on the name
__has_feature(generic_selections)?
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
