Subject: Re: [boost] [clang] Using clang in Windows
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-07-15 10:47:49
On 7/15/2014 5:01 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Edward Diener
>> Sent: 14 July 2014 22:08
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] [clang] Using clang in Windows
>> On 7/14/2014 1:35 PM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Edward Diener
>>>> Sent: 14 July 2014 08:06
>>>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>>>> Subject: [boost] [clang] Using clang in Windows
>>>> Just a note to everybody about using clang in Windows
>> 2) The greater of the two problems is that in order to compile with the
>> VC++ header files clang in Windows, targeting VC++, has had to emulate a
>> certain amount of VC++ "bugs" just to digest the header files without compile
>> The most serious negative form of this emulation IMO is that clang has
>> some of the "bugs" in the very non-standard VC++ preprocessor. However the
>> of the "bugs" in the VC++ preprocessor, even if the VC++ preprocessor "works"
>> for the majority of fairly simple macro processing, is large when it comes to
> the sort
>> of preprocessor metaprogramming done in Boost PP and my own VMD library.
>> These bugs all center around the fact that the VC++ preprocessor does not do
>> expansion correctly, often seemingly not fully expanding macro input before
>> tokens are substituted in the invoking macros output. But there are a number
>> other things which the VC++ preprocessor gets wrong, which can only be
>> by very complicated examples and rarely by easy cases. It is highly doubtful
>> clang targeting VC++ duplicates all the "bugs" and preprocessing weirdness of
>> macro expansion, but just duplicating some of them creates another compiler
>> weird VC++ like problems which a library like Boost PP is asked to deal with.
> I know
>> Paul Mensonides has no enthusiasm for such work and neither do I, dealing with
>> VC++ itself has been hard enough. I made the suggestion in the clang
>> mailing list that clang targeting VC++ should act like the buggy VC++
>> for macros in VC++'s header files but should be a C++ standard conforming
>> preprocessor otherwise, possibly controlled by some pragmas, but it seems like
>> nobody cares about this. There are just too many programmers who just want
>> targeting VC++ to behave like VC++ so they can use it theirt VS IDE compiler
> and they
>> don't care if doing so means that it cannot compile other C++ standard code
>> correctly, in this particular case C++ macros.
> Thanks for your efforts on this can of worms too.
> Perhaps we have to wait for Microsoft to produce an (presumably) optional
> 'correct' pre-processor?
I recall some post about this related to one of the Boost developers
talking to Herb Sutter about the non-standard VC++ preprocessor and
getting a verbal promise that Microsoft would finally produce a standard
conforming C++ preprocessor for VC++. But I believe that Microsoft has
made similar "noises" in that direction over the years and nothing has
ever happened so I am not sanguine about it happening anytime soon.
> This wait will not be what *you* want, of course!
What I do not want is to have to try to hack Boost PP in order to make
clang targeting VC++ work. To clang's credit when I ran the Boost PP
tests, which I have largely expanded, in the 'develop' branch against
the clang VC++ implementation, only a single test failed due to clang
emulating VC++ preprocessor bugs.
I have argued vehemently in the clang developer mailing list that,
although I do now understand that clang targeting VC++ has to emulate
some of VC++'s preprocessor bugs in order to compile the VC++ header
files, clang targeting VC++ should otherwise be a C++ standard
conforming preprocessor for all other code. This could be done pretty
nicely via a pragma. But it does not seem to have made much of an
impression on others there. Many clang developers/users are so happy
that they can use clang in place of VC++ in the VS IDE that they cannot
understand what a poor C++ preprocessor VC++ is when one goes beyond
fairly simple macro expansion techniques, as of course Boost PP does.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk