Paul Eggert wrote:
> It seems unlikely that a compiler would
> advertise conformance to C++11 without supporting nullptr.
Here's a case where a compiler advertises conformance to C++11 without
supporting all that's needed:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44871
I'm sure there are more examp
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > +# ifdef __cplusplus
> > +/* For the C++ compiler the result of the configure test is irrelevant.
> > + We know that at least g++ and clang with option -std=c++11 or higher,
> > as well
> > + as MSVC 14 or newer, already have nullptr. */
> > +# if !(((defined __GNUC__
Thanks for fixing it so quickly.
On 2023-02-05 19:27, Bruno Haible wrote:
+# ifdef __cplusplus
+/* For the C++ compiler the result of the configure test is irrelevant.
+ We know that at least g++ and clang with option -std=c++11 or higher, as
well
+ as MSVC 14 or newer, already have nullpt
Bjarni Ingi Gislason wrote:
> Debian testing (bookworm/sid)
>
> gcc (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
>
> GNU Make 4.4.0.90
>
>
> [...]
> CXX src/roff/troff/env.o
> In file included from /usr/include/c++/12/bits/stl_bvector.h:61,
> from /usr/include/c++/12/vector:65,
>
Debian testing (bookworm/sid)
gcc (Debian 12.2.0-14) 12.2.0
GNU Make 4.4.0.90
[...]
CXX src/roff/troff/env.o
In file included from /usr/include/c++/12/bits/stl_bvector.h:61,
from /usr/include/c++/12/vector:65,
from ../src/roff/troff/charinfo.h:20,
