On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 08/09/2011 09:14 AM, Marc Glisse wrote: >>> I don't think we should define the C++ 2011 value yet. In my opinion, we >>> should wait until: >>> 1) the standard is official >>> 2) gcc implements most of it: people will want to use __cplusplus as a >>> test to know if they can use C++0X features, not if the compiler does >>> some effort to implement half of them. >> >> I'm of two minds about this, but I see that clang and edg still use 199711L >> in C++0x mode, so let's stick with that for now. > > Ok, I just wanted to bring it up. I'll resubmit with the 201103L change > removed once the other patches (tm etc. mangling and libstdc++) are > resolved.
After the experience with C++98 implementation, I have also become two-minded about this. In the end I agree with Jason that we should just keep the C++03 value for the moment.
