On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:31:50 -0000, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Author: coppro > Date: Wed Jan 13 02:31:49 2010 > New Revision: 93312 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=93312&view=rev > Log: > Add a bunch more feature-checking macros for C++0x features. Some of these > are > disabled with the intent that users can start with them now and not have > to change > a thing to have them work when we implement the features. > > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/docs/LanguageExtensions.html (original) > +++ cfe/trunk/docs/LanguageExtensions.html Wed Jan 13 02:31:49 2010 > + > +<h3 id="cxx_concepts">C++ TR <tt>concepts</tt></h3> > + > +<p>Use <tt>__has_feature(cxx_lambdas)</tt> to determine if support for
__has_feature(cxx_concepts) > ============================================================================== > --- cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/has_feature_cxx0x.cpp (added) > +++ cfe/trunk/test/Lexer/has_feature_cxx0x.cpp Wed Jan 13 02:31:49 2010 > @@ -0,0 +1,101 @@ > +// RUN: %clang -E -std=c++0x %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-0X > %s > +// RUN: %clang -E %s -o - | FileCheck --check-prefix=CHECK-NO-0X %s > + > +#if __has_feature(cxx_lambdas) > +int lambdas(); > +#else > +int no_lambdas(); > +#endif > + > +// CHECK-0X: no_lambdas > +// CHECK-NO-0X: no_lambdas > + > + > +#if __has_feature(cxx_nullptr) > +int nullptr(); It's probably not a good idea to use the keyword nullptr in the path that expects it to exist. Even though this will only get preprocessed, it still looks wrong. > + > +#if __has_feature(cxx_decltype) > +int decltype(); Same here. > + > +#if __has_feature(cxx_static_assert) > +int static_assert(); And here. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
