Subject: Re: [SG10] __has_[cpp_]attribute
From: Stephen Kelly (steveire_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-15 01:56:05
Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Richard Smith wrote:
>> 1) That's a *lot* of macros. We might be able to get away with the cost
>> the number of macros that SG10 is currently proposing, but I would be
>> *seriously* concerned about a measurable performance cost (on compiling
>> an empty file, which is not actually an irrelevant concern) of
>> predefining hundreds of __has_attribute macros.
>> 2) Either of those identifiers could contain underscores, and there is
>> other separator character that works.
>> [3) It's ugly.]
> Good points.
Here's something I didn't expect: User libraries defining the __foo macros
Should that be encouraged or discouraged?
SG10 list run by email@example.com