[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Selecting a C++ standard
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: Selecting a C++ standard |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:25:05 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 |
On 10/28/2012 04:07 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> If I want C11, I certainly won't find the C99 or C89
> fallbacks useful at all. I want it to fail there and then.
I'm afraid that if you want C11, then the only reasonable
implementation right now is something like this:
AC_MSG_ERROR([C11 is not supported on this platform])
because there are no C11 implementations yet.
Eventually something better may turn up. But in the
meantime, packages using C11 features (such as Emacs)
are typically doing it in the Autoconf Way, namely,
by testing for the specific feature and using it if available.
This philosophy permeates Autoconf pretty thoroughly.
- Re: Selecting a C++ standard, (continued)
- Re: Selecting a C++ standard, Roger Leigh, 2012/10/28
- Re: Selecting a C++ standard, Bob Friesenhahn, 2012/10/28
- Re: Selecting a C++ standard, Adrian Bunk, 2012/10/30
- Re: Selecting a C++ standard, Nick Bowler, 2012/10/30
- Re: Selecting a C++ standard, Adrian Bunk, 2012/10/30
- Re: Selecting a C++ standard, Paul Eggert, 2012/10/30
- Re: Selecting a C++ standard,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: Selecting a C++ standard, Adrian Bunk, 2012/10/28
Re: Selecting a C++ standard, Adrian Bunk, 2012/10/27
Re: Selecting a C++ standard, Florian Weimer, 2012/10/28