On 01/21/2013 12:36 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: > For C stuff like > const/restrict/volatile/inline, it's possible to achieve this > fairly simply, and autoconf does a very good job here. > > However, if you look at the C++11 features like declspec, > automatic type inference, array initialisers, delegate > constructors, range-based for loops, lambdas, etc. these > features can not be substituted for. C++11 is not materially different from C11 in this respect. C11 has features such as _Generic, _Thread_local, anonymous unions, _Atomic, etc., that also can't be substituted for. And this issue isn't new to C11. C99 has many features, such as variable length arrays and 'long long', that simply can't be implemented via macro substitutes in C89-only systems. If you want to use variable length arrays, you really need a compiler that supports them. So there's nothing new here. Some features can be backported, others can't. But that doesn't mean Autoconf should be encouraging the use of obsolete standards. > I have no reason not to use C++11 features today. The > only current thing preventing this is lack of portable support > for it in autoconf This is a good argument for Autoconf encouraging the use of the latest C++ version. But it's not an argument for Autoconf encouraging the use of some *older* C++ version. On 01/21/2013 04:01 PM, Miles Bader wrote: > If you need C++11 features and don't have any compatibility fallbacks, > isn't following the autoconf language test in configure.ac by > "if not c++11 then AC_ERROR([BARF! Need a C++11 compiler!])" good > enough? Yes, that's the right question. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
