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: [C++ Patch] Add __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__

From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:55:46 -0400
Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] Add __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__
References: <5177EF87 dot 4000003 at oracle dot com> <517807C4 dot 3060704 at redhat dot com> <CAAiZkiB2gXHTzxiYT0khkHXsL0m68Rp4Jm4HLdNYj+=X6VKXxA at mail dot gmail dot com>

On 04/24/2013 12:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:

I would really rather avoid introducing another macro to be removed again
later.  Instead, let's use a value of __cplusplus greater than 201103L,
perhaps 201300?


yes, that makes sense, and even a better path forward.
Hopefully, the next committee draft will have that value.

We won't have a value for the next standard until we have a nextstandard, so let's just invent a value for now; presumably people willknow better than to check for that invented value specifically.


Jason

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [C++ Patch] Add __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] Add __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- [C++ Patch] Add __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [C++ Patch] Add __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [C++ Patch] Add __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

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