[cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions

[Rolf Eike Beer]

Sean McBride wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:08:20 +0200, Rolf Eike Beer said:
> >So
> >any version checking like I do in the CXXFeatures test ("I have compiler
> >version X, the supported features should be ...") is entirely mood for
> >Clang. Great.
> 
> Well, I don't know what we're really talking about here... but it sounds
> like you're trying to determine a compiler's features based on its version
> number.  That's inherently pretty fragile, don't you agree?
> 
> I do know that the clang folks discourage trying to determine clang's
> abilities from its version number.  Instead, they have a mechanism called
> 'Feature Checking Macros' described here:
> 
> <http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#feature-checking-macros>

That could be something for both the testcase as well as the feature checks. 
I'll see if I can come up with a good solution to that.

The "which feature does match $version" is just a testcase thing to see if the 
module gives the expected results.

Eike
-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/attachments/20130805/83ebeabb/attachment.sig>