On 11/10/2014 10:55 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Would a 4.9 version be accepted?
Sure.What do you think about defining the macros for unsupported features to 0 rather than leaving them undefined? The document doesn't seem to specify.
Jason
On 11/10/2014 10:55 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Would a 4.9 version be accepted?
Sure.What do you think about defining the macros for unsupported features to 0 rather than leaving them undefined? The document doesn't seem to specify.
Jason