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 4BBBD3858D20; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:37:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4BBBD3858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700051854;
	bh=TN3pC9LzeLR0NZrYi94G0gPXjOCsofy0V2FW3BRwr6Y=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=YPtjzmZLLv13q+z0v+hpr8sA6NDKLEvLgREPagji1qPQyt3v2vwZ5eU9JQgit5rmm
	 klj4FK/ljTFxbpe1hfYZJJGcmSC3bUYHIhZfMUOl4B5sWBmRaCbRzio8b8Yh04vjN2
	 epfT1HZzJwuynK62w+DcF9uS4A6HrEkwk4rTtYKk=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/109882] sanitizer/common_interface_defs.h bogusly
 defines __has_feature
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 12:37:34 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109882-4-Zs3fanq1ks@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109882-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109882-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109882

--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> The header is included since r13-2677-g0abc63a5ea4550 (and
> r12-9342-g0cec4e9cd44e25 on the branch), and not including it would mean =
not
> being able to annotate atomic<shared_ptr<T>>.

Although it's still present on the branches. Do we want to fix it there too=
?=