This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: New const char* ctor for C++-0x

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
Cc: jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:39:44 +0100
Subject: Re: New const char* ctor for C++-0x
References: <1224142325.118733.1261682520547.JavaMail.root@vms231.mailsrvcs.net>

On 12/24/2009 08:22 PM, 3dw4rd@verizon.net wrote:
> So, a target can't have C++-0x if _GLIBCXX_USE_LONG_LONG is undefined?
>   
>From the point of view of C++0x long long is like, say, int or double,
you cannot have a conforming implementation without it.
> So _GLIBCXX_USE_LONG_LONG must be defined if __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ is defined?
>   
In this transition phase, the user in principle could configure
--disable-long-long (of course the default is enabled), but, as I said,
this doesn't make any sense at all together with C++0x behavior. I think
very soon the configure option will be just removed and anything still
depending at the moment on _GLIBCXX_USE_LONG_LONG just enabled
unconditionally. Given how little the option is used, doesn't make sense
in my opinion to have anything more sophisticated.

Paolo.

References:
- Re: Re: New const char* ctor for C++-0x
  - From: 3dw4rd

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