Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > /* The condition (99 < __GNUC__) is temporary, until we know about the
> >first G++ release that supports static_assert. */
> > # if (99 < __GNUC__) && defined __cplusplus
> > # define HAVE_STATIC_ASSERT 1
> > # endif
> >
> g++ supports static_assert since 4.3 I thin
On 09/04/11 01:14, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>>> +# if 0 && defined __cplusplus
>>> +# define HAVE_STATIC_ASSERT 1
>>> +# endif
>>
>> That "0 &&" looks wrong: did you put it in for debugging,
>> and intend to remove it before installing?
>
> The intent of this "0" condition was to be a pl
Hi Paul,
> > +# if 0 && defined __cplusplus
> > +# define HAVE_STATIC_ASSERT 1
> > +# endif
>
> That "0 &&" looks wrong: did you put it in for debugging,
> and intend to remove it before installing?
The intent of this "0" condition was to be a placeholder until GCC 4.7
or 4.8 or whatever releas
On 04/08/2011 12:30 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Here's a proposed patch to fix it.
Thanks, that looks good, except:
> +# if 0 && defined __cplusplus
> +# define HAVE_STATIC_ASSERT 1
> +# endif
That "0 &&" looks wrong: did you put it in for debugging,
and intend to remove it before installing?
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> So C++0x support in gcc 4.6.0 is using static_assert()
> while C1X support is using _Static_assert().
ISO C1X draft n1548 [1] defines _Static_assert as a keyword (A.1.2).
The meaning of _Static_assert is defined in section 6.7.10:
6.7.10 Static assertions
Syntax
On 04/08/2011 09:30 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> So C++0x support in gcc 4.6.0 is using static_assert()
> while C1X support is using _Static_assert().
> Why the divergence in the standards?
Sorry, I don't know, as I don't use C++.
> Do we need to enforce the gcc option --std=c1x
> to enable this as
On 05/04/11 03:26, Paul Eggert wrote:
> This gnulib patch modifies "verify" to use C1X's _Static_assert if
> running GCC 4.6.0 or later, which generates easier-to-read
> diagnostics. I haven't pushed this yet because I thought it wouldn't
> hurt to get more pairs of eyes to look at it.
So C++0x s
On 04/05/2011 03:21 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Isn't the first part of this condition a bit optimistic?
I suppose it is. Chalk me down as Candide.
I installed the patch without the __STDC_VERSION__ business,
and thanks to Eric and you for the reviews.
Hi Paul,
> +# if (201104 <= __STDC_VERSION__ \
> + || 4 < __GNUC__ || (__GNUC__ == 4 && 6 <= __GNUC_MINOR__))
> +# define HAVE__STATIC_ASSERT 1
Isn't the first part of this condition a bit optimistic? I think that
experience in the past has shown that compiler vendors tend to bump the
__STD
On 04/04/2011 08:26 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> This gnulib patch modifies "verify" to use C1X's _Static_assert if
> running GCC 4.6.0 or later, which generates easier-to-read
> diagnostics. I haven't pushed this yet because I thought it wouldn't
> hurt to get more pairs of eyes to look at it.
Cool
This gnulib patch modifies "verify" to use C1X's _Static_assert if
running GCC 4.6.0 or later, which generates easier-to-read
diagnostics. I haven't pushed this yet because I thought it wouldn't
hurt to get more pairs of eyes to look at it.
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index db0800c..3f3141
11 matches
Mail list logo
