Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-28 Thread Paul Eggert
Thanks, I installed that, with a NEWS item added. ___ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-28 Thread Roger Leigh
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 08:07:01PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:38:15PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > > 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 doe

Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-22 Thread Roger Leigh
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:38:15PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > 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 feat

Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-21 Thread Paul Eggert
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, deleg

Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-21 Thread Miles Bader
Roger Leigh writes: > 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. If you use them, you absolutely require a C++11 > compiler; th

Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-21 Thread Roger Leigh
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:47:05PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > Thanks for doing that. > > I don't use C++, so I'm not the best person to review this patch. > But from a quick look I can see one thing missing: the documentation > needs updating. I've attached an updated patch which includes all th

Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-21 Thread Roger Leigh
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:02:01AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 01/21/2013 05:46 AM, Roger Leigh wrote: > > For both C and C++, I think there are some considerations > > here where it does make sense: > > > > - If my project supports language standard n, enabling > > standard n+1 or n+2 enable

Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-21 Thread Paul Eggert
On 01/21/2013 05:46 AM, Roger Leigh wrote: > For both C and C++, I think there are some considerations > here where it does make sense: > > - If my project supports language standard n, enabling > standard n+1 or n+2 enables language features which are > actively harmful to use, since unintent

Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-21 Thread Roger Leigh
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:47:05PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > Thanks for doing that. > > I don't use C++, so I'm not the best person to review this patch. > But from a quick look I can see one thing missing: the documentation > needs updating. Sure, I mentioned why it was missing in my mail. I'

Re: [patch] Extend AC_PROG_CXX to check for standards conformance

2013-01-20 Thread Paul Eggert
Thanks for doing that. I don't use C++, so I'm not the best person to review this patch. But from a quick look I can see one thing missing: the documentation needs updating. One other thing: On 01/20/2013 01:27 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: > it's useful to restrict the compiler to a minimum standard >