From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id B8AAB3858D38; Sun,  5 Jul 2020 10:02:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B8AAB3858D38
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyBidWlsZC8yNjE4N10gWy1zdGQ9Z251KysxN10gZ2RiL2lu?=
 =?UTF-8?B?ZmVyaW9yLmg6IGVycm9yOiDigJhib29sIHN0ZDo6dW5jYXVnaHRfZXhjZXB0?=
 =?UTF-8?B?aW9uKCnigJkgaXMgZGVwcmVjYXRlZCBbLVdlcnJvcj1kZXByZWNhdGVkLWRl?=
 =?UTF-8?B?Y2xhcmF0aW9uc10=?=
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 10:02:50 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: build
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-26187-4717-4StJ96StIw@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-26187-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-26187-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-prs/>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2020 10:02:50 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D26187

--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #4)
> Should this check the macro value against 201411?
> See https://en.cppreference.com/w/User:D41D8CD98F/feature_testing_macros

Ah, I didn't realize that the macro had a meaningful value.

But at
https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-recommenda=
tions
, I read:
...
The value specified for a feature-test macro is based on the year and month=
 in
which the feature is voted into the working draft. In a case where a featur=
e is
subsequently changed in a significant way, but arguably remains the same
feature, the value of the macro is changed to indicate the =E2=80=9Crevisio=
n level=E2=80=9D of
the specification of the feature. However, in most cases it is expected that
the presence of a feature can be determined by the presence of any non-zero
macro value
...

They use:
...
 #if __cpp_lib_is_final
...
instead of #ifdef though in the example, so I suppose I'll do the same.

> Otherwise it seems fine to me.

Ack, I'll commit then.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=