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 t
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 10:38:03AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:12:51PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > The audit trail in the PR pretty much sums up the problem.
> > OK to commit?
>
> Can you tune up the comments a little bit?
> If you look up http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 08:12:51PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> The audit trail in the PR pretty much sums up the problem.
> OK to commit?
Can you tune up the comments a little bit?
If you look up http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html
you'll see that most of the C++11 features are already im
