Re: Selecting a C++ standard

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 02:05:01PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Paul Eggert writes:
> > On 10/27/2012 01:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > Is anyone working on such a thing?
> > 
> > Not that I know of.
> > 
> > For C, we're deprecating the "I want version X"
> > macros in favor of just AC_PROG_CC_STDC, which says
> > "I want the latest version".  You might want to do
> > that for C++ to, as it's more the Autoconf Way.
> 
> This is good news/bad news, IMO.
> 
> It means that if I want to do compliance testing to make sure a package
> builds under a variety of compilers I have to do work "outside" of
> autoconf to make that happen.

I don't understand the problem you are trying to describe.

> It also means that the installed STDC may be too old for what I want I
> have to do other checks to make sure the installed STDC is sufficient.
> 
> It might be good to be able to say "at least C89".

Current autoconf git gives you "as high as possible".

"at least C89" can anyway be assumed today.

How to test for what you need (also allowing you to abort configure if 
something you need is not supported) is a separate issue.

> And I'm also aware that some of the issues above need to be solved by
> making sure the toolchain visible to configure contain the tools that
> we want configure to actually use.
> 
> H

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed