On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 05:07:04PM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:47:50PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>...
> > > I originally wrote AC_PROC_CC_C99 because it was several years
> > > since GCC supported C99, but there was no portable way to use
> > > C99 features with projects using autoconf unless you added
> > > horrible hacks. We still have this situation for C++, and it
> > > would be nice to solve it in a similar way to C. I'm happy to
> > > go with the new approach of a single macro, but I would be
> > > interested to understand how the issues I outlined above square
> > > with this.
> >
> > The main worry would actually be whether a compiler in C++11 mode might
> > reject any existing C++03 code.
>
> I submit you are still ignoring the other side of the problem, which
> says "Make sure I am using a C++03 compiler so I can be sure that the
> package builds with a C++03 compiler if that is all *somebody else* has."
Assuming all C++03 compilers support the complete standard is a quite
unrealistic assumption.
E.g. gcc does not support the complete C++98 or C++03 standards, and
AFAIK there are no plans that it ever will.
> 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
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
