On 28 May 2015 at 16:51, Martin Sebor wrote: > The standard specifies that implementations conforming to C++ > 11 must define the __cplusplus macro to 201103L, and recommends > that non-conforming compilers (presumably those that aim to be > C++11 conforming but whose support is incomplete) should use > a value with at most five decimal digits. > > C++ 98 defines __cplusplus to 199711L, and C++ 14 to 201402L. > > With that, the following should cover past and future cases: > > #if __cplusplus == 199711L > // C++ 98 conforming implementation > #elif __cplusplus == 201103L > // C++ 11 conforming implementation > #elif __cplusplus == 201402L > // C++ 14 conforming implementation > #elif __cplusplus > 201402L > // future C++ implementation > #elif 0 < __cplusplus && __cplusplus < 100000L > // non-conforming C++ implementation > #else > // not C++ or a non-conforming C++ implementation > #endif Until GCC 4.7.0 __cplusplus was always defined to 1, even though C++11 support in 4.6.4 was OK, and C++98 support was mostly complete.
