Le 29 avr. 2011 à 20:07, Douglas Gregor a écrit :

> 
> On Apr 29, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 08:13:05AM -0700, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>> 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).
>> 
>> OK, I am fine with introducing a c_ prefix, for the reasons you
>> point out.  But the way I understand it is that __has_feature in fact
>> has 2 semi-orthogonal purposes:
>> 
>> 1) To test for support for Clang-specific extensions to the language.
>>  This is the purpose of the non-language-prefixed feature test
>>  identifiers.
>> 
>> 2) To test for Clang support for language features which have been
>>  standardised in the current language.  This is the purpose of the
>>  language-prefixed feature test identifiers.
>> 
>> However, there is a gap here in that there is no way to test for
>> the existence of Clang-specific language extensions which have been
>> standardised in other languages.  For example, generic selections
>> can be used to implement an OpenCL runtime library using Clang.
>> Since OpenCL is based on C99, generic selections would be classified
>> as an extension.  This makes it impossible to test for that extension.
>> 
>> One solution to this problem is to have 2 feature test identifiers
>> for each standardised feature (e.g. "c_generic_selections" and
>> "generic_selections"), each serving the 2 purposes mentioned above.
>> The disadvantage of this approach would obviously be the doubling up of
>> language feature identifiers.  Also, as you point out "static_assert"
>> would be ambiguous.
>> 
>> An alternative solution would be to introduce another macro, say
>> __has_extension, which takes the same feature test identifiers
>> as __has_feature.  __has_extension would test the features of
>> the compiler alone (approximately serving purpose 1) while
>> __has_feature tests the features of the compiler together
>> with the current language (approximately serving purpose 2).
>> 
>> So for example __has_feature(c_generic_selections) could be
>> used to test for support for generic selections in C1X while
>> __has_extension(c_generic_selections) could be used in any language.
>> I would imagine that __has_extension should act identically to
>> __has_feature if -pedantic-errors (or perhaps -pedantic) is enabled.
>> 
>> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> I think that __has_extension is an *excellent* idea!
> 
>>> 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)?
>> 
>> I am not currently using __has_feature(generic_selections) neither
>> am I aware of any users.
>> 
>> I think we would be justified to rename the feature given that it
>> has not yet appeared in any released version of Clang.
> 
> Okay, great!



I tried to implements this new suggestion.
The has_feature variants are bound to the selected language and returns true 
only when compiling as C1X, and has_extension always returns true.
Is this what you had in mind ? 


-- Jean-Daniel



Attachment: feature.diff
Description: Binary data

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to