[cfe-commits] Requesting review of MS compatibility patch (fixes bug 11789)

[Aaron Wishnick]

On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:15 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> Do we need __LPREFIX() support for anything else? If not, it would seem a lot simpler to add support for a L__FUNCTION__, which behaves just like __FUNCTION__ but produces a wide string.


MSVC also supports some other predefined expressions, like __FUNCDNAME__, __FUNCSIG__, etc, so it would be necessary to provide the wide versions of any of those. Also, though it's undocumented, there are people who know about it and use it, e.g. see [1] and [2]. Also, my hope for this patch is to increase compatibility with the MSVC headers, as well as other projects that only target Microsoft's compiler, and there's the potential for those other projects to make use of the __LPREFIX extension.

I agree though, it would be much simpler to add L__FUNCTION__, so I guess it's up to you where you want to set the bar. I can see the benefit of not adding a chunk of code for a somewhat esoteric feature.

Thanks for your time!

[1] http://blog.shuva.in/index.php?entry=entry080823-063456
[2] http://www.viva64.com/en/d/0008/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120611/e5edfee2/attachment.html>