Chris Lattner wrote: > On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:55 AM, James Widman wrote: > >> I've heard that clang is meant to be implemented in a "subset of C+ >> +" (which I guess means that some core language features are barred >> from use). >> >> Is there a document anywhere that describes and motivates that subset? > > It is pretty subjective. We do use almost all C++ features somewhere > in the (greater llvm) code base. It's really more about making clear > and simple code than it is about banning specific language features. > Some coding guidelines are available here: > http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html > > That said, there are two features we don't like: RTTI and EH. This > is because they violate the "don't pay for it if you don't use it" > principle.
Is this violation intrinsic to the concepts and requirements of RTTI and/or EH or is this an implementation issue? I have no personal attachment to RTTI but EH and its associated safety guarantees allow me to read, write and reason about code much better. If these /are/ implementation issues does CLang plan to do better in its C++ implementation? Thanks, Michael Marcin P.S. Sorry for dredging up such an old post but I'm really behind reading this list :) _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
