From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 3AC3F3858C56; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 22:41:32 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3AC3F3858C56 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1665614492; bh=2YwkV4LNzR4XhS4jElao+oOFABUHLPSqjoucuxckzjI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=BW5FzeoDkQLHQMR7zqsKnVgEu99iOi+bR9p89VRJVQH5okAEnoCZXFOe44+E0eiOB sP4s6geSseqBylFHTmDISSTHxd8xk5I0To66hgNP6iN+jsCyanqKO8GcMx6s4yyJQN 8Y9VaERY3gyaHNRe+LNVATrDWYG9ZcceIReRAAg4= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/93821] Define __cplusplus to 202002L in C++20 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 22:41:31 +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: 10.0 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: 10.3 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 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=3D93821 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- No, because that just makes it more awkward to write makefiles and build scripts. We used to do that, and it had no real benefit. If you want to use c++2a, you can use that. Other people just want to use c++20 across multiple releases, some of which have full C++20 support and some don't. To check the level of conformance you should check the macros defined by the compiler when compiling, not rely on which command-line options happen to be supported.=