[cfe-dev] auto and decltype availability

[Nico Weber]

Probably either 2.9 or none yet. Try it? :-)

Nico
Brevity due to phone
On Jul 15, 2011 6:11 PM, "Michael Price - Dev" <
michael.b.price.dev at gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I'll be verbose then. :-)
>
> 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?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 15, 2011, at 6:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Michael Price wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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".
>>
>> Ok, are you asking about llvm.org compilers, apple compilers,
>> someone else's compilers? Everyone has their own versioning
>> scheme :).
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Michael Price wrote:
>>>
>>> > 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?
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> 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:
>>> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#feature_check
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20110715/d3aeab83/attachment.html>