[cfe-dev] Determine whether the current clang version has a specific bug

[John McCall]

On Jun 21, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Jordan Rose wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 1:06 AM, Sebastian Redl wrote:
>> I had the same idea (for some app's plugin API, but the principle is the same). In this case, however, I think we should give the builtin a clang-specific name. __has_feature and __has_extension could be done the same way by other compilers with matching feature names, and code would profit. However, another compiler is unlikely to have exactly the same bug, or realize it and come up with the same name scheme (I would just use Bugzilla numbers). What's more, since all unknown bug names are considered not fixed, that would mean that each such test would need a compiler predicate first.
> 
> I'm actually very disturbed by the idea of __has_bug / __has_clang_bug because of this. There is no way to sync bug numbers up across compilers, especially if there's a bug in Clang that we fix in version X that always behaved correctly in GCC. The advantage of __has_feature and friends is that they're pessimistic -- if you get a 1, you know you can use the feature. Getting a 1 from __has_bug might just mean it's not a bug to begin with.
> 
> (What counts as a fixed bug? When we add a feature in SVN rXXX and then close a PR a month later when we notice it's been fixed, what's the right thing to do? What about regressions? Who is going to update the list when they fix a bug? Do our internal bugs count as bugs? Do our incremental fixes on longer projects count as bugs?)
> 
> The motivating use case is indeed motivating, since you get a warning if you do include [[unused]] on your private fields in old compilers (and in GCC), and a warning if you don't in new-Clang. And here __has_bug is being used pessimistically as well. But I don't think this is the way to solve the problem in general. Because __has_bug is vendor-specific, it's no better than comparing version numbers (trunk is not supposed to be stable) and probably not really more semantic. (If we came up with unique identifiers for the bugs it would be a little better, but that's more effort that I honestly don't think is necessary.)
> 
> For this one specific case, I'd rather extend __has_attribute to allow an optional context for the attribute. Another possibility would be to add __has_warning, but I'd be concerned that people would start using this to conditionally comment out code when compiling with certain warnings. (I haven't really thought that one through.)

__has_bug is a maintenance / code-bloat nightmare by design, and people should feel bad for proposing it. :)

It would be totally reasonable to have a __has_feature(unused_attribute_on_fields), though.

John.