Subject: Re: [boost] [clang] clang-cl expansion of macros
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-17 14:35:06
On 4/17/2016 11:41 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2016 at 8:13, Edward Diener wrote:
>>> The real effort behind such a patch would be navigating the internal
>>> politics on getting the patch into trunk. I have no need in my own
>>> code for a C99 preprocessor, hence I am not willing to invest that
>>> effort. But others with a more pressing need may wish to do so.
>> Why not bring up the issue on the clang developers mailing list ? Clang
>> source code is not an area which Boost developers can affect in this
>> mailing list, but in the clang developers mailing list you might be able
>> to persuade a clang developer to listen to your suggestion(s).
> That would be the "navigating the internal politics" I mentioned. I
> have no current pressing need for a C99 conforming preprocessor in my
> own code.
Nor do I as far as clang goes, since normal clang and clang targeting
mingw(-64)/gcc on Windows already has a C++ standard conformant
preprocessor already and works very well with Boost libraries.
I guess it must be those people who want to use clang targeting VC++ on
Windows, either by itself or with the VC++14 as the backend compiler,
who might want what you suggest. But since I know that isn't you from
your response and it is certainly not me, someone else can address the
issue of convincing clang to change their source, and "navigate the
internal politics" if they like.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk