From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 3B15B3858D39; Fri, 6 Jan 2023 14:50:36 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3B15B3858D39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1673016636; bh=upGeTD6F9HyA/Vw1FjsIgw1TR3o/aqZBSokg+VkguFU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PtYmErRPKw77JpdNVU6nUas/zEic+u30S6QiR3b+5de7skc14NouhMB8RfpwpxqJe 7FGlyawMMq+K0fn9nbc55PDGGLlivkNVf7aG19w5nyuIyg2+aB5Pr5H2d+VGfYar/6 XWueZeBioxfz+gqXhmj5DjOi4Amy+HIUsIAL0RmQ= From: "jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com" 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 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: WORKSFORME 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: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D60512 Jessica Clarke changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jrtc27 at jrtc27 dot com --- Comment #11 from Jessica Clarke --- Macros and __has_feature are equally expressive, sure, but why should Clang change what it=E2=80=99s been doing from the start because GCC doesn=E2=80= =99t want to be compatible with how it=E2=80=99s always done it? It seems a bit rude to exp= ect Clang to change when it was the one to define how these worked first and GCC took its implementation. It=E2=80=99s not like it=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99t reliably= done, so there is code out there that only works with Clang=E2=80=99s sanitizers).=