https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #16)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> > (In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #14)
> > > I'm working on this.
> >
> > I will rebase my WIP and push it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #16 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> (In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #14)
> > I'm working on this.
>
> I will rebase my WIP and push it somewhere - [ it has __has_feature and
> __has_extension
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #14)
> I'm working on this.
I will rebase my WIP and push it somewhere - [ it has __has_feature and
__has_extension components .. but likely bit rotten with changes to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #13 from Alex Coplan ---
Clang recognizes the "cxx_defaulted_functions" feature to detect whether "=
default" functions are supported.
It's clear that __has_feature (cxx_defaulted_functions) should evaluate to 1
for -std=c++11 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WORKSFORME |---
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Jessica Clarke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely ---
But why is that better than GCC's alternative, just defining macros like
__SANITIZE_ADDRESS__ and __SANITIZE_THREAD__?
Libstdc++ does this:
// Macro indicating that TSAN is in use.
#if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Alex Coplan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7)
> N.B. checking #if __cpp_attributes works correctly with all versions of GCC
> (with a true result since 4.9.2 and false otherwise), whereas adding a new
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
N.B. checking #if __cpp_attributes works correctly with all versions of GCC
(with a true result since 4.9.2 and false otherwise), whereas adding a new
__has_feature extension and using #if
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
http://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-recommendations
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So while GCC doesn't support C++11 attributes yet
Wrong, it does support them, in fact for a while now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #3 from Evan Teran eteran at alum dot rit.edu ---
@Andrew,
I hadn't seen that they were supported, I stand corrected. However that
particular feature was for example purposes. Any unsupported feature would do.
@Marc,
A quick read of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Evan Teran from comment #3)
Any unsupported feature would do.
All the core features are at least partially supported, only some ABI-breaking
library changes have been
17 matches
Mail list logo
