Re: A better method to require compiler features

[nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:12:49AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> You didn't address c99 and other things that might be in the same class,
> but it seems that the USE_CXX_FEATURES should have a USE_C_FEATURES
> analog, with c99, c10(?) and whatever else has or will come along.  I
> see that as both a good thing to do and necessary to adopt "don't put
> c99 in USE_LANGUAGES".  I'm guessing you agree but the discussion has
> just been about the harder case of C++?

I've thought about this, c11 is actually where it matters most
currently. And has_include. Maybe USE_CXX_FEATURES could be used
for both, there is certainly some overlap when it comes to things
like compiler builtins and the desire to use e.g. AVX intrinsics.

The problem is that the most reasonable shortening of "C language
families" is already taken by a compiler based on LLVM.

> Perhaps FAIL_UNMET_COMPILER_REQUIREMENTS?

I think I have decided on "ALLOW_NEWER_COMPILER" (default yes).