||sotecware dot net
--- Comment #4 from Jonas Wielicki 2013-02-19 15:25:32 UTC ---
Is there a way we could get a warning for doing this? Seems to be like a hole
one could easily fall in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #21 from Jonas Wielicki 2012-06-14 16:10:38 UTC ---
So this boils down to that we cannot have a c++11/non-c++11 heterogenous
environment on a system. One would have to build all libraries for both
standards until c++11 is well establis
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #19 from Jonas Wielicki 2012-06-14 15:21:07 UTC ---
Right, because otherwise I would not consider that as a safe verification that
this is indeed a duplicate of the referenced bug. And I like safe
verifications.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #16 from Jonas Wielicki 2012-06-14 13:26:53 UTC ---
I think I built it correctly with std=c++11, but is there a way to verify this
properly in the built library?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #8 from Jonas Wielicki 2012-05-24 14:48:23 UTC ---
I was able to use the VM sooner than expected, so sorry for the doublepost.
I found that whether using no_init or init<>() does not make a difference in my
case. To use init<>() on th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53455
--- Comment #7 from Jonas Wielicki 2012-05-24 14:32:37 UTC ---
Interestingly, I am using no_init too, but without supplying an alternative
constructor. I am not at the testing machine right now, but I thought I'd share
that bit of information. Tes
