Re: C++11
Markus Wanner <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.version-control.monotone.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 05/16/2014 05:17 PM, Stephen Leake wrote: > Markus Wanner <[email protected]> writes: > >> Interesting, I thought I tested that. But you're right, this looks like >> the macro doesn't do what it's supposed to do. It itself claims: >> >> # The first argument, if specified, indicates whether you insist on an >> # extended mode (e.g. -std=gnu++11) or a strict conformance mode (e.g. >> # -std=c++11). If neither is specified, you get whatever works, with >> # preference for an extended mode. >> >> I left it unspecified, as I'm fine with whatever works (tm). >> >> I corrected the order of tests, now. So for gcc, it now yields the c++?? >> rather than gnu++?? variants. > > But it says "with preference for an extended mode.", which means it > should pick gnu++ if both work. Which is what it did. Oh, right, I read that the wrong way around. Thanks for clarifying. Either way, the script now does what we want it to do. I should adjust the comment, though. > If we are also supporting clang and MSVC, we need c++11, not gnu++11 (I think). Well, the intent of the script is to *test* what works and what not. (And MSVC needs an entirely different build system.) Regards Markus Wanner _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 242 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEAREDAAYFAlN2ORQACgkQsPwMloDjyo9v/wCfQ2fVdg7y66EPHxaDjEbx2M8j xUEAn3LBM++C/Otrb30D2mUwcpTVPucd =L7UI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----