From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 21348 invoked from network); 24 May 2023 14:34:24 -0000
Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 24 May 2023 14:34:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 25893 invoked by uid 550); 24 May 2023 14:34:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 25846 invoked from network); 24 May 2023 14:34:20 -0000
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 10:34:08 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: =?utf-8?B?SuKCkeKCmeKCmw==?= Gustedt <jens.gustedt@inria.fr>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20230524143408.GA4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <cover.1684932861.git.Jens.Gustedt@inria.fr>
 <9985ac5610d2e36d01032e1685ca3d629fccac64.1684932861.git.Jens.Gustedt@inria.fr>
 <20230524142201.GW4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20230524162916.294f6b94@inria.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230524162916.294f6b94@inria.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [musl] [C23 divers headers 16/17] C23: add the nullptr_t type

On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 04:29:16PM +0200, Jₑₙₛ Gustedt wrote:
> Rich,
> 
> on Wed, 24 May 2023 10:22:01 -0400 you (Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>)
> wrote:
> 
> > nullptr_t is not defined pre-C23 so the __clang__ branch shouldn't be
> > there.
> 
> Well, if I do that, such a change is impossible to test, because there
> are not yet any compilers with that version number. How should we do
> that, then? Have a test for >= 201800L or so?

I'm not really convinced this needs testing at this point (what even
is a test testing, if not that the right version results in the
definition being present?), but what does existing -std=c2x or
whatever set the version to? Could probably use >= that instead of >=
the official C23 version.

Rich