On 10/21/2011 03:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/21/2011 03:11 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Note that at least clang now defines __cplusplus to its new C++11 value
(in experimental C++0X mode only). Apparently they switched around last
June and say they are not the only ones. So if you want to follo
On 10/21/2011 06:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
Is there a plan on what the default language will be? C is stuck in 1980, and
will be forever. Personally, I'd rather have g++ move up language standards by
default, I'd rather make the move before 2023.
I think it makes sense to change the default
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On 10/21/2011 03:11 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>> Note that at least clang now defines __cplusplus to its new C++11 value
>>> (in experimental C++0X mode only). Apparently they switched around l
On Oct 21, 2011, at 12:52 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 03:11 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> Note that at least clang now defines __cplusplus to its new C++11 value
>> (in experimental C++0X mode only). Apparently they switched around last
>> June and say they are not the only ones. So if you
On 10/21/2011 03:11 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Note that at least clang now defines __cplusplus to its new C++11 value
(in experimental C++0X mode only). Apparently they switched around last
June and say they are not the only ones. So if you want to follow their
lead...
Hmm, between that and the fa
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:
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
> "Rainer" == Rainer Orth writes:
Jason> I'm of two minds about this, but I see that clang and edg still
Jason> use 199711L in C++0x mode, so let's stick with that for now.
Rainer> with the prerequisite patches now installed, here's the reworked version
Rainer> of the final patch.
Rainer> T
Jason,
> 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 featu
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Jason Merrill 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
Jason Merrill 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
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 compile
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, Rainer Orth wrote:
This patch achieves what all the previous ones have prepared: finally
defining __cplusplus correctly instead of the current 1. I'm uncertain
if it's already appropriate to define the C++ 2011 value yet, but I've
kept it in the patch.
Hello,
I don't thin
This patch achieves what all the previous ones have prepared: finally
defining __cplusplus correctly instead of the current 1. I'm uncertain
if it's already appropriate to define the C++ 2011 value yet, but I've
kept it in the patch.
Of course this patch can only go in once all the prerequisite p
13 matches
Mail list logo
