On 06/02/2014 10:31 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 05/31/2014 02:30 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Also, I am pretty sure that gcc doesn't support the latest constexpr, we
shouldn't define those macros lightly.
That's correct. We should leave __cpp_constexpr at 200704 for now.
Right... That was a testing thing I left in by accident to make sure
supercedance would work. Commented out. ;-)
I think having __has_include for all languages is fine since it is
already in the implementation defined namespace.
Agreed. These macros should be defined if the feature is supported.
I now have these for all C/C++ versions. When I implemented these I
thought "Why the heck hasn't the preprocessor had these for 20 years..."
Similarly, features of later standards that we implement in earlier
conformance modes as extensions (specifically, init-captures and
binary literals) should have the appropriate macros defined.
Very good idea...
I'll research these. unless someone has a little list somewhere...?
Jason
