30 Mar
2016
30 Mar
'16
11:16 p.m.
Edward Diener wrote:
There are quite a few failures in this clang emulation of the VC++ preprocessor when tested against the preprocessor test code. In fact testing clang emulation of VC++ preprocessor when I don't treat clang as VC++ in Boost PP, but as its normal C++ standard conforming preprocessor, still fails a few cases but far less than when clang is treated as VC++ in Boost PP.
I suppose that the right thing to do here from user point of view (if that's not too much of a hassle, of course) would be to use the conforming mode for the parts that work under it, and the VC++ mode for those that work under it, and if something doesn't work with either, tough luck. :-)