On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Steve Kargl wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I find "clang did this, so g++ better follow
> suit" to be a rather uncompelling technical reason for
> defining __cplusplus to be 201103L [1]. The technical question
> is fairly simple: "Does g++ conform to the C++11 standard?"
I think this is just the same issue as where trouble.texi says:
Sometimes people say that defining @code{__STDC__} in a compiler that
does not completely conform to the ISO C standard somehow violates the
standard. This is illogical. The standard is a standard for compilers
that claim to support ISO C, such as @samp{gcc -ansi}---not for other
compilers such as plain @command{gcc}. Whatever the ISO C standard says
is relevant to the design of plain @command{gcc} without @option{-ansi} only
for pragmatic reasons, not as a requirement.
Note that -std=c++11 is documented to be incomplete, not to claim to
support the full standard. I think the most pragmatically useful value of
__cplusplus is to reflect the intent - the C++ version followed insofar as
differences between versions are implemented - and this does not mean the
support is complete, just as __STDC_VERSION__ had the C99 value with
-std=c99 even in versions predating the implementation of C99 inline
semantics (for example).
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
