[PATCH] D146420: Document the Clang policies on claiming support for a feature

[Corentin Jabot via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

cor3ntin added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/InternalsManual.rst:3285
+  * Are there known issues with the feature that reject valid code?
+  * Are there known issues that fail to reject invalid code?
+  * Are there known crashes, failed assertions, or miscompilations?
----------------
any way to rephrase that, "that cause clamg to reject" maybe?


================
Comment at: clang/docs/InternalsManual.rst:3292
+prevent defining it. Note, it is acceptable to define the feature test macro on
+a per-target basis if needed.
+
----------------
Is that desirable?
If i have a build system checking for support through feature macros, I'm not sure they do that on a target per target basis.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/InternalsManual.rst:3294-3299
+When in doubt, being conservative is better than being aggressive. If we don't
+claim support for the feature but it does useful things, users can still use it
+and provide us with useful feedback on what is missing. But if we claim support
+for a feature that has significant bugs, we've eliminated most of the utility
+of having a feature testing macro at all because users are then forced to test
+what compiler version is in use to get a more accurate answer.
----------------
+1 :)


================
Comment at: clang/docs/InternalsManual.rst:3300-3306
+
+The status reported by the feature test macro should always be reflected in the
+language support page for the feature (`C++
+<https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html>`_, `C
+<https://clang.llvm.org/c_status.html>`_) if applicable. This page can give
+more nuanced information to the user as well, such claiming partial support for
+a feature and specifying details as to what remains to be done.
----------------
The status reported by a feature test macro should always be reflected in the
language support page for the coresponding feature 

such as claiming partial 

(i can't suggest edits, for some reason?)


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D146420/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D146420