<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>I guess I'll be verbose then. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>What is the release version number(s) of the LLVM project that first included a clang frontend that linked in a version of libclang that was able to correctly (according to a reasonably recent draft of the C++0x standard) handle the 'auto' and 'decltype' keywords?</div><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Jul 15, 2011, at 6:40 PM, Chris Lattner <<a href="mailto:clattner@apple.com">clattner@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><div><div>On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Michael Price wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">I think that is a perfectly fine recommendation, but this isn't for writing code. This is for letting people know which version of the compiler first introduced a certain feature. For instance, if we want to use static_assert, we may (depending on other feature availability) only want to update to the version of clang that supported the features that we desire.<br>
<br>It's hard to convince managers that we should update (or even switch compilers) if we have to respond with "use __has_feature in the code".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ok, are you asking about <a href="http://llvm.org"><a href="http://llvm.org">llvm.org</a></a> compilers, apple compilers, someone else's compilers? Everyone has their own versioning scheme :).</div><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chris Lattner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clattner@apple.com"><a href="mailto:clattner@apple.com">clattner@apple.com</a></a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
On Jul 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Michael Price wrote:<br>
<br>
> Does anyone know which released version first had the auto and decltype features 'turned on'? And generally speaking, is there an easy way to determine this for any given C++0x feature?<br>
><br>
> For some background, I'm working on a series of C++0x presentations at the company I work for, and at the end of every presentation I have a chart that shows the availability of the features I discussed that day. Currently we are not using clang, but I have an entry for it because I want to show that clang is trying to keeping pace with GCC and surpassing IBM XL C/C++ and Sun Studio.<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Michael,<br>
<br>
We recommend that people write code that uses __has_feature to check for a feature, not compare against a compiler version number. These are documented here:<br>
<a href="http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#feature_check" target="_blank"><a href="http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#feature_check">http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#feature_check</a></a><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-Chris<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>