On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Nah, only double check that the testcase you are un-xfail-ing uses
> -std=gnu++11, otherwise will not pass ;)
Committed :)
Thanks!
--
Tim Shen
Hi
Tim Shen ha scritto:
>Do I need to bootstrap again?
Nah, only double check that the testcase you are un-xfail-ing uses
-std=gnu++11, otherwise will not pass ;)
Paolo
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Ah I see. I definitely agree it's good to accept that instead of
> being unnecessarily strict, but other people will want the option of
> strict conformance, so I think we can please everyone with something
> like:
>
> else
> {
> #ifdef
On 27 September 2013 13:32, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 9/27/13 4:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 27 September 2013 03:15, Tim Shen wrote:
>>>
>>> POSIX ERE says that escaping an ordinary char, say R"\n" is not
>>> permitted, because 'n' is not a special char. However, they also say
>>> that :
On 9/27/13 4:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 27 September 2013 03:15, Tim Shen wrote:
POSIX ERE says that escaping an ordinary char, say R"\n" is not
permitted, because 'n' is not a special char. However, they also say
that : "Implementations are permitted to extend the language to allow
these.
On 27 September 2013 03:15, Tim Shen wrote:
> POSIX ERE says that escaping an ordinary char, say R"\n" is not
> permitted, because 'n' is not a special char. However, they also say
> that : "Implementations are permitted to extend the language to allow
> these. Conforming applications cannot use su
POSIX ERE says that escaping an ordinary char, say R"\n" is not
permitted, because 'n' is not a special char. However, they also say
that : "Implementations are permitted to extend the language to allow
these. Conforming applications cannot use such constructs."
So let's support it not to make use
