[cfe-dev] Is it the time to mark coroutine status as green in cxx_status page?

[Richard Smith via cfe-dev]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 19:01, chuanqi.xcq via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
>    Thank you for telling the whole process to mark a language feature
> done. Although it seems hard, I know how to make it now.
>
>    And a bad news is that I defined the feature test macro `
> __cpp_impl_coroutine` previously when I move the coroutine components out
> of experimental namespace...
> The intention why I introduce this is that I want to make libcxx known if
> the compiler is new enough to search coroutine components in std namespace.
> Do you think we should undefine the macro in another patch?
>

If we're not confident that we're done with the implementation, then yes,
we should urgently stop defining the macro to the value specified in the
standard. If you want to define it as, say, 1 in the interim, to indicate
that we have some support but incomplete support, that's probably OK.


> Thanks,
> Chuanqi
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> From:Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> Send Time:2021年12月15日(星期三) 10:45
> To:chuanqi.xcq <yedeng.yd at linux.alibaba.com>
> Cc:clang developer list <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>; lewissbaker <
> lewissbaker at gmail.com>
> Subject:Re: [cfe-dev] Is it the time to mark coroutine status as green in
> cxx_status page?
>
> This feature is marked as partial, in part, because we don't know what's
> missing. We implemented against a moving target (the C++ Coroutines TS and
> evolving work towards the final standard feature), and there's no guarantee
> we didn't miss changes along the way. So, the major piece of work we're
> missing here is: someone needs to go through the sections on coroutines in
> the C++ standard, and make sure that all the work listed there has been
> implemented and is tested. Someone should also go through all the open bugs
> on coroutines and see which ones are sufficiently important that we should
> not claim conformance until we address them. That'll either result in a
> todo list of the remaining items, or a conclusion that we are in fact done.
>
> Once we're done, we'll need to update our feature test macro to match;
> then we can mark it as done on the status page.
>
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 18:55, chuanqi.xcq via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>    I noticed that the status of coroutine in cxx_status page is partial
> previously: https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html.
>    This looks weird to me since coroutine is used broadly and stably in
> practice and I want to mark it as green. So I tried
> to move coroutine out of the experimental namespace before and implement
> the semantics of throwing unhandled_exception()
> suggested by Lewis.
>    So I sent https://reviews.llvm.org/D115692 to mark coroutine as done.
> I want to ask if there is any blocking issue to do this?
> I would love to try to fix any inconsistency.
>
> Thanks,
> Chuanqi
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20211214/54ff878a/attachment.html>