Re: C++11

Markus Wanner <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.)

I meant we need to enforce using only standard C++ 2011 constructs, and
not allow Gnu extensions, since the Gnu extensions are not likely to be
supported by clang and MSVC.

-- 
-- Stephe