[cfe-dev] Improving diagnostics when moving standard library headers

[Louis Dionne via cfe-dev]

Actually, the problem is deeper than this. Since we removed support for <experimental/optional> completely and <optional> is only provided in C++17 and above, we created a hole for users that want <optional> in C++14. They just can’t get it anymore, whereas previously they would have used <experimental/optional>. As much as I hate to say this, I think the answer to this question is just “you’re using experimental features, sorry if they go away.” Or, alternatively, we could keep providing <experimental/optional> in C++14 mode.

Given that the nature of the problem is different than what I initially thought, I don’t think it is worth pursuing any kind of compiler change to enable what I talked about in the original message.

Louis

> On Aug 10, 2018, at 11:25, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Why would the user write the code in that way, though? Wouldn't they want "has_include optional, include optional, else include experimental/optional"? to prefer the final/standardized version
> 
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:13 AM Louis Dionne via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In libc++, we moved the <experimental/optional> header to <optional>. To guide users when they try to use <experimental/optional>, that file now contains:
> 
>     #error "<experimental/optional> has been removed. Use <optional> instead."
> 
> The problem is that it traps people using __has_include(<experimental/optional>) to detect whether they should be using std::experimental::optional or std::optional on the version of the standard library they're using. For example:
> 
>     #if __has_include(<experimental/optional>)
>     #   include <experimental/optional>
>     #else
>     #   include <optional>
>     #endif
> 
> This is currently always broken, since <experimental/optional> is always provided, but including it is an error.
> 
> I believe a better situation would be to remove the header, but somehow have a way of providing a better compiler diagnostic than the default one when that header is included. The default diagnostic will just say “I can’t find this header!”, whereas we really want to say "This header has been moved over there". Ideally, this sort of feature would also be usable by other libraries, not just the standard library, but I’d welcome just about any solution for now.
> 
> My question: Do we have a way of achieving what I'm requesting today? If not, does anyone have ideas about how to achieve this? My guess is that a pragma in the header that's been moved would not work, because that means __has_include would have to know way more than it probably does today.
> 
> Thanks,
> Louis
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20180810/129b8428/attachment.html>