OK, thanks! Who's going to file the issue? :-)

On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 12:28, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 14:17, Thomas Köppe via SG10
> <sg10_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Aha, thanks -- yes, if the macros are normative, then it might indeed be
> best if we resolve this four-fold value bump collision with an LWG issue
> that captures the discussion.
>
> They seem plenty normative to me, or that has least been the intent.
> The standard requires the presence and values
> of a set of macros, and they affect the meaning of portable programs
> written against a particular standard.
>
> Sure, the phrasing in [version.syn]/1, "The header <version> supplies
> implementation-dependent information
> about the C ++ standard library (e.g.,version number and release
> date)." is a bit funny, because there shouldn't
> be anything implementation-dependent about the macros and their
> values. Luckily, "implementation-dependent"
> is not a Term of Power. :)
>