public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/60512] would be useful if gcc implemented __has_feature similary to clang
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2023 14:50:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-60512-4-lQkaoADd8z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-60512-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512
Jessica Clarke <jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com
--- Comment #11 from Jessica Clarke <jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com> ---
Macros and __has_feature are equally expressive, sure, but why should Clang
change what it’s been doing from the start because GCC doesn’t want to be
compatible with how it’s always done it? It seems a bit rude to expect Clang to
change when it was the one to define how these worked first and GCC took its
implementation. It’s not like it’s a complicated thing for GCC to implement,
and it should really have done so when it added sanitizer support in order to
be fully compatible rather than do things differently and force users to
support both ways in their code (which, to this day, isn’t reliably done, so
there is code out there that only works with Clang’s sanitizers).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-06 14:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-12 19:24 [Bug c++/60512] New: " eteran at alum dot rit.edu
2014-03-12 19:35 ` [Bug c++/60512] " glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-12 19:36 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-03-12 19:52 ` eteran at alum dot rit.edu
2014-03-12 20:16 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-03 16:41 ` acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-04 11:40 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-06 14:50 ` jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com [this message]
2023-02-02 16:43 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-11 16:39 ` acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-05 16:31 ` acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-05 18:03 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-05 18:19 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-05 20:26 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-09 10:37 ` [Bug c++/60512] would be useful if gcc implemented __has_feature similarly " acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-09 10:57 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-09 11:13 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-09 12:14 ` acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-27 10:46 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-27 11:08 ` acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-11 21:53 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-60512-4-lQkaoADd8z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).