aaron.ballman added a comment. In D157747#4581933 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157747#4581933>, @cor3ntin wrote:
> This does not appear to be valid under MSVC and I don't think we should > support features that MS does not (Nor can i find any documentation that it > ought to work) > https://godbolt.org/z/7Te3YYeb9 Agreed -- we typically do not want to make extensions to Microsoft's extensions. > Supporting the same concatenation behavior MSVC does have seem like a cleaner > approach. We would not have an many new tokens. > Before you do anything though. I'd like the feedback of more folks. > > I can't find any documentation for LPREFIX, but it seems in the general case, > it can be emulated that way https://godbolt.org/z/dr7MjMs99 > > In terms of breaking change, it's only an issue if L/u/etc are existing macro > at the point of use. It's a bit hard to reason about `__LPREFIX` given there's no documentation for it and it's not a macro that expands to anything we can poke at. However, https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/27402 shows there is interest in having Clang support it, so I weakly lean towards that option, though it may be more effort to reverse engineer how it works for various edge cases. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D157747/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D157747 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
