Date: | 2013-05-28 |
---|---|
Reply to: | Clark Nelson |
Title: | Feature testing: Summary of significant changes to C++14 |
Do we eventually want a WG21 vote on a numbered paper? Do we (also) eventually want a living document on a wiki?
What about recommendations for C++11?
Do we want to use github?
How can we gauge consensus within SG10 outside of a teleconference?
For the sake of improved portability between partial implementations of C++14, WG21 (the ISO technical committee for the C++ programming language) recommends that implementers and programmers follow the guidelines in this document concerning feature-test macros.
Implementers who provide a new feature should define a macro with the recommended name, in the same circumstances under which the feature is available (for example, taking into account relevant command-line options), to indicate the presence of support for that feature.
Programmers who wish to determine whether a feature is available in an implementation should base that determination on the state of the macro with the recommended name. (The absence of a tested feature may result in a program with decreased functionality, or the relevant functionality may be provided in a different way. A program that strictly depends on support for a feature can just try to use the feature unconditionally; on an implementation lacking necessary support, translation will presumably fail.)
The introductory sections of N3435 are presented here for reference.
In the transition from C++03 to C++11 — which of course is ongoing — much pain has been caused by different implementations adding new features in different orders.
For example, variadic templates were added to the working paper for C++11 by N2242, adopted by the committee in 2007. They were implemented and released by GNU in 2008. EDG implemented them in 2011. Microsoft apparently has yet to implement them.
On the other hand, decltype
was added to the working paper by N2343,
adopted in 2007. EDG implemented it in 2007, GNU in 2008, and Microsoft by 2010.
Implementers of portable code, such as Boost, Dinkumware and Plum Hall, are for practical purposes obliged to know exactly which features are and are not usable in each implementation of interest.
Today, the only way to do that is to test, in an implementation-specific manner (probably using a version-number macro), whether the implementation is new enough to support the feature in question — for each implementation of interest.
Here is some code that attempts to determine whether rvalue references are available in the implementation in use:
#ifndef __USE_RVALUE_REFERENCES #if (__GNUC__ > 4 || __GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 3) || \ _MSC_VER >= 1600 #if __EDG_VERSION__ > 0 #define __USE_RVALUE_REFERENCES (__EDG_VERSION__ >= 410) #else #define __USE_RVALUE_REFERENCES 1 #endif #elif __clang__ #define __USE_RVALUE_REFERENCES __has_feature(cxx_rvalue_references) #else #define __USE_RVALUE_REFERENCES 0 #endif #endif
First, the GNU and Microsoft version numbers are checked to see if they are high enough. But then a check is made of the EDG version number, since that front end also has compatibility modes for both those compilers, and defines macros indicating (claimed) compatibility with them. If the feature wasn't implemented in the indicated EDG version, it is assumed that the feature is not available — even though it is possible for a customer of EDG to implement a feature before EDG does.
Fortunately Clang has ways to test specifically for the presence of specific features. But unfortunately, the function-call-like syntax used for such tests won't work with a standard preprocessor, so this fine new feature winds up adding its own flavor of complexity to the mix.
Also note that this code effectively assumes that the IBM and Oracle compilers do not implement rvalue references at all. That should not be interpreted as a slight to those compilers; it's just that this code has already gotten pretty complicated even before taking them into account.
Also note that this code doesn't check to see if any required command-line option has been thrown to enable support for the feature in question, so it will get the wrong answer in many cases.
The following table itemizes all the changes that were made to the working draft for C++14 as specified in a WG21 technical document. (Changes that were made as specified in a core or library issue are not included.) The table is sorted by the section of the standard primarily affected.
Significant changes to C++14 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Doc. No. | Title | Primary Section | Macro name Is the difference between clang's __has_feature
and __has_extension important enough for us to specify/recommend/mandate?
|
Value What do we want? |
Header Should there be a specific header instead of predefined? |
N3472 | Binary Literals in the C++ Core Language | 2.14 | __cpp_binary_literals |
predefined | |
N3323 | A Proposal to Tweak Certain C++ Contextual Conversions | 4 | __cpp_contextual_conversions |
predefined | |
N3648 | Wording Changes for Generalized Lambda-capture | 5.1 | __cpp_generalized_capture |
predefined | |
N3649 | Generic (Polymorphic) Lambda Expressions | 5.1 | __cpp_generic_lambda |
predefined | |
N3664 | Clarifying Memory Allocation | 5.3 | __cpp_new_merging Is this really necessary? |
predefined | |
N3624 | Core Issue 1512: Pointer comparison vs qualification conversions | 5.9, 5.10 | Core issue fix, not a feature; no macro needed | ||
N3652 | Relaxing constraints on constexpr functions / constexpr member functions and implicit const | 5.19, 7.1 | __cpp_relaxed_constexpr generalized instead of relaxed ?
|
predefined | |
N3638 | Return type deduction for normal functions | 7.1 | __cpp_return_type_deduction Do we also want __cpp_decltype_auto ?
|
predefined | |
N3639 | Runtime-sized arrays with automatic storage duration | 8.3 | __cpp_runtime_array |
predefined | |
N3653 | Member initializers and aggregates | 8.5 | __cpp_aggregate_nsdmi |
predefined | |
N3667 | Drafting for Core 1402 | 12.8 | Core issue fix, not a feature; no macro needed | ||
N3651 | Variable Templates | 14, 14.7 | __cpp_variable_templates |
predefined | |
N3669 | Fixing constexpr member functions without const | various | Library fix, not a feature; no macro needed | ||
N3673 | C++ Library Working Group Ready Issues Bristol 2013 | various | Library issue fixes, not a feature; no macro needed | ||
N3471 | Constexpr Library Additions: utilities | 20.2-20.4 | __cpp_lib_constexpr_functions |
<utility> |
|
N3469 | Constexpr Library Additions: chrono | 20.11 | <chrono> |
||
N3470 | Constexpr Library Additions: containers | 23.3 | <array> |
||
N3658 | Compile-time integer sequences | 20 | __cpp_lib_integer_sequences |
<utility> |
|
N3668 | exchange() utility function | 20 | __cpp_lib_exchange_function |
<utility> |
|
N3670 | Wording for Addressing Tuples by Type | 20.2-20.4 | __cpp_lib_tuples_by_type |
<utility> |
|
N3672 | A proposal to add a utility class to represent optional objects | 20.5 | __cpp_lib_header_optional |
predefined How to handle new headers? |
|
N3656 | make_unique | 20.7 | __cpp_lib_make_unique |
<memory> |
|
N3421 | Making Operator Functors greater<> | 20.8 | __cpp_lib_operator_functors |
<functional> |
|
N3462 | std::result_of and SFINAE | 20.9 | __cpp_lib_result_of_sfinae |
<functional> |
|
N3545 | An Incremental Improvement to integral_constant | 20.9 | __cpp_lib_improved_integral_constant |
<type_traits> |
|
N3655 | TransformationTraits Redux | 20.9 | __cpp_lib_transformation_trait_aliases |
<type_traits> |
|
N3642 | User-defined Literals for Standard Library Types | 20.11, 21.7 | __cpp_lib_type_udls |
<string> <chrono> |
|
N3662 | C++ Dynamic Arrays | 23.2, 23.3 | __cpp_lib_header_dynarray |
predefined How to handle new headers? |
|
N3657 | Adding heterogeneous comparison lookup to associative containers | 23.4 | __cpp_lib_heterogeneous_comparison |
<map> <set> |
|
N3644 | Null Forward Iterators | 24.2 | __cpp_lib_null_iterators |
<iterator> |
|
N3671 | Making non-modifying sequence operations more robust | 25.2 | __cpp_lib_robust_sequences This name is lame. |
<algorithm> |
|
N3654 | Quoted Strings Library Proposal | 27.7 | __cpp_lib_quoted_string_io |
<iomanip> |
This list from Tom, captured as a place-holder.
UCHAR CONSTEXPR DECLTYPE RAW_STRINGS RVALUE_REF USER_DEFINED_LITERALS VARIADIC_TEMPLATE DOUBLESQUARE_ATTRIBUTES