AaronBallman wrote: > > I think that's reasonable. Will that be: > > ``` > > #pragma clang __set_pp_state(glibcxx_version, 12) > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > ``` > > #pragma clang __set_pp_state glibcxx_version 12 > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ? (Slight preference for the parenthesized form, but I don't think it's a > > requirement for anything) > > I was going to go w/ the latter since I don’t think we need the parentheses > as delimiters here: we expect an identifier followed by a number, not > arbitrary expressions or token sequences (and even if we did, it would just > be everything until the end of the line after the identifier)
I'd be fine with that. Actually, do we want something like: ``` #pragma clang __set_pp_state glibcxx_version=12 ``` so that we could then support: ``` #pragma clang __set_pp_state glibcxx_version=12, msvc_version=24, sdcc_version=-10 ``` instead of needing three sets of pragmas? I'm probably being too clever... :-D Any of these seem fine. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/210802 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
