On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Aaron Ballman <aa...@aaronballman.com> wrote:
> That was what I meant by "justification". I would say it has to be > reasonably compelling code (win32 headers, boost, some other major > library) as that's our usual bar for these sort of bug-for-bug > compatible things, as I understand it. I'd rather apply this patch now than wait for ffmpeg or someone to try to use static_assert and then have to hustle to get this into clang. Many many C projects have COMPILE_ASSERT macros that are just a small change away from relying on (_S|s)tatic_assert. > Agreed, we have a way forward if we need it. I mostly just want to > avoid the burden of supporting that because this is sufficiently weird > (being a non-conforming keyword). > It's not conforming, but it's not that weird to define our own keywords. The C++ committee chose the keyword "static_assert" because it was unlikely to conflict with existing code. MSVC has made this a keyword in C mode and the world hasn't burned.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
