On 04/08/2011 09:30 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > So C++0x support in gcc 4.6.0 is using static_assert() > while C1X support is using _Static_assert(). > Why the divergence in the standards?
Sorry, I don't know, as I don't use C++. > Do we need to enforce the gcc option --std=c1x > to enable this as you do? No, it works just fine as-is: because _Static_assert begins with an underscore followed by an upper-case letter, GCC is allowed to (and does) support it even when conforming to older standards (and now, possibly, I have answered your first question too :-): $ cat t.c #include <verify.h> verify (0.0 < 1.0); verify (1 < 0); int x = verify_true (1 < 0); int y = verify_true (x); $ gcc -I. t.c t.c:3:1: error: static assertion failed: "verify (1 < 0)" t.c:4:9: error: static assertion failed: "verify_true (1 < 0)" t.c:5:9: error: expression in static assertion is not constant $ gcc -I. --std=c90 t.c t.c:3:1: error: static assertion failed: "verify (1 < 0)" t.c:4:9: error: static assertion failed: "verify_true (1 < 0)" t.c:5:9: error: expression in static assertion is not constant
