>>! In D6284#6, @danalbert wrote: > Not sure what our policy is on allowing C++11 features in pre-C++11 code. I > think I'd prefer that people just be required to upgrade to C++11 rather than > allowing them to keep living in the past.
libc++ is a C++11 standard library with C++03 compatibility (or at least that is what I've been told). `<atomic>` is currently the only header that explicitly causes a compile error when included in C++03. Almost every other header seems to give a best effort approach to providing c++03 compatibility. `<atomic>` works almost perfectly in C++03 already so I don't see why we forbid it. > I also don't like that we're not implementing a complete `<atomic>` in C++03 > mode. Sounds like another good reason to not support it to me. Fair point. The only lost functionality is initialization with an `=` sign in it. This is more a loss of syntax than it is functionality. > I'll defer to mclow on this one. Just my two cents. Thanks for the input. I would just like to know what to do with the tests in C++03 mode :) http://reviews.llvm.org/D6284 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
