Just looked online and stdlibc++ has this at the top the mutex header:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.9.3/libstdc++/api/a01070_source.html
#if __cplusplus < 201103L
# include
#else
Shouldn't we perform the same sort of check?
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:57 AM, don hinton wrote:
> That's a good point. Since mutex is a new c++11 feature, why is it
> injected into the std namespace when not compiling with c++11. I looked at
> the mutex header, and it doesn't test current value of __cplusplus.
>
> Should it?
>
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Jim Porter via cfe-users <
> cfe-users@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/29/2016 12:15 PM, Brian Cole via cfe-users wrote:
>>
>>> Was hoping for something that would be C++03 compatible as well since we
>>> still have C++03 compilers to target as well.
>>>
>>
>> If you're #including , haven't you locked yourself into C++11 (or
>> better) anyway? In that case, you should use curly braces for your
>> initializer (or at least stop saying `using namespace std;`).
>>
>> For existing code where `mutex` is a global variable, you'll be fine. If
>> you add
>>
>> #include
>> using namespace std;
>>
>> to existing code, you'll get a compiler error because the name `mutex` is
>> now ambiguous.
>>
>> If you wanted to warn about this in *all* cases, you'd need an additional
>> warning to detect function declarations in local scope, since that's what
>> C++ would treat this as. Clang doesn't have such a warning, but perhaps you
>> could convince someone to add it.
>>
>> - Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> cfe-users mailing list
>> cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
>>
>
>
___
cfe-users mailing list
cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
