From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id C0B813842ADC; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:09:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C0B813842ADC
From: "vittorio.romeo at outlook dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/100157] Support `__type_pack_element` like Clang
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:09:38 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: vittorio.romeo at outlook dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100157-4-iCnxTnrm66@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100157-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100157-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:09:38 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100157

--- Comment #9 from Vittorio Romeo <vittorio.romeo at outlook dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8)
> (In reply to Vittorio Romeo from comment #6)
> > worthwhile to keep the same name as Clang for compatibility,
>=20
> No, that's not an option. Clang's is a built-in template, GCC's can't be =
(it
> would require considerable internal reworking to support that).
>=20
> That's also why we have __integer_pack(N)... instead of __make_integer_se=
q<>.
>=20
> Since GCC's built-in has to use different syntax, it would be a disaster =
to
> use the same name.
>=20
> #if __has_builtin(__type_pack_element)
> // now what? is it a template or a function?
> #endif

Got it, I didn't realize that they had to be wildly different. I guess that=
 as
long as a library developer can wrap either under a portable macro, it shou=
ld
be fine.=