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: [PATCH. libstdc++] Use the correct C++14 __cplusplus value (201402L). Added C++1z to the preprocessor.

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
Cc: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:17:18 +0200
Subject: Re: [PATCH. libstdc++] Use the correct C++14 __cplusplus value (201402L). Added C++1z to the preprocessor.
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <53F91799 dot 2070902 at verizon dot net> <53FC4524 dot 9090606 at oracle dot com> <20140826085206 dot GB2842 at redhat dot com> <53FC4B4E dot 1040802 at oracle dot com>

Hi again,

On 08/26/2014 10:54 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:

Hi,

On 08/26/2014 10:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

That seems like a good idea, but I'm not convinced there's any benefit
in Ed's changes to do:

-#if __cplusplus > 201103L
+#if __cplusplus >= 201402L

It seems like unnecessary churn to me,

about this, I had the same thought ;)

By the way, in case isn't already clear, it occurs to me that the kindof change proposed by Ed, thus standardize on __cplusplus >= "requiredversion", will make more sense when the C++17 Standard will be closer.So far, since we can simply do everything with only 201103L, my idea tooof adding _GLIBCXX_CXX11 & co seems quite pointless.


Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH. libstdc++] Use the correct C++14 __cplusplus value (201402L). Added C++1z to the preprocessor.
  - From: Ed Smith-Rowland

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