[SG10] __has_[cpp_]attribute

Stephen Kelly steveire at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 17:56:50 CEST 2014


Richard Smith wrote:

>  1) That's a *lot* of macros. We might be able to get away with the cost
>  of
> the number of macros that SG10 is currently proposing, but I would be
> *seriously* concerned about a measurable performance cost (on compiling an
> empty file, which is not actually an irrelevant concern) of predefining
> hundreds of __has_attribute macros.
> 
>  2) Either of those identifiers could contain underscores, and there is no
> other separator character that works.
> 
> [3) It's ugly.]

Good points. 

I agree that those are more important than consistency, especially as it can 
be more consistent in the future if __has_builtin() or anything else is 
added in the future. 

Then only the language/library feature tests would be 'inconsistent' by the 
absence of __has_feature().

Thanks,

Steve.


More information about the Features mailing list