This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [libcpp] Correctly define __cplusplus (PR libstdc++-v3/1773)

From: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:11:58 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [libcpp] Correctly define __cplusplus (PR libstdc++-v3/1773)
References: <yddy5z2q3xt.fsf@manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1108091504230.5409@laptop-mg.saclay.inria.fr> <4E419465.6080307@redhat.com>
Reply-to: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org

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 can use C++0X features, not if the compiler does
some effort to implement half of them.
I'm of two minds about this, but I see that clang and edg still use 199711L in C++0x mode, so let's stick with that for now.

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...

--
Marc Glisse

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [libcpp] Correctly define __cplusplus (PR libstdc++-v3/1773)
  - From: Jason Merrill

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]