On 4/9/2016 3:19 AM, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 9 Apr 2016 at 8:32, degski wrote:
Sergey suggested I'd run regression tests, in the "other thread". I was hesitant at first, mostly due to the luke warm reception.
It's only apparently a luke warm reception due to the volume from those with various axes to grind about winclang's historical decisions.
There are no "axes to grind" by me, just a reality: winclang's emulation of the VC++ preprocessor, as demonstrated when encoded into Boost PP, is a failure. I wish it were a complete success but it is not. This also means that Boost libraries which use Boost PP will likely fail when compiled with winclang. To paraphrase the old standby: "what is it about this that you do not understand ?" If there is a version of VC++14 that uses clang, and that clang is not emulating the non-standard VC++ preprocessor but is producing the normal standard C++ preprocessor, and that version can be identified via preprocessor defines differently from the clang version that does emulate the non-standard VC++ preprocessor, I would be glad to change Boost PP to support that specific version. Otherwise asking Boost PP to support the clang that emulates the non-standard VC++ preprocessor, and is a failure in doing so, is not happening. snipped...