>Eric Lemings wrote: > >I think there should be an implicit #define directive in <rw/_defs.h>: > > #if defined _RWSTD_NO_VARIADIC_TEMPLATES > //|| defined _RWSTD_NO_RVALUE_REFERENCES if actually >required for C++0x extensions > # define _RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_0X > #endif > >What does everyone think? >
I think we're really asking what are the minimum requirements for us to support our c++0x extensions on a given platform. For simplicity, I think it would be nice to assume these features are supported. It keeps the code (and tests) cleaner by not having to check for each feature (as I recently did to the tuple tests). I hate having to look at hacky workarounds unless they are absolutely necessary. Travis >Brad. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Travis Vitek >> >> >> Yes, I'm porting to aCC and none of the tuple tests compile >> (lack of rvalue reference). Actually, now that I think about >> it I should probably have added a check for variadic templates. Ugh. >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Eric Lemings >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> Author: vitek >> >> Date: Thu Jul 3 16:26:24 2008 >> >> New Revision: 673865 >> >> >> >... >> >> Modified: stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp >> >> URL: >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utili >> >> ties/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp?rev=673865&r1=673864&r2=673865&view=diff >> >> ============================================================== >> >> ================ >> >> --- stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp >> >> (original) >> >> +++ stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp >> >> Thu Jul 3 16:26:24 2008 >> >> @@ -29,7 +29,8 @@ >> >> #include <rw_driver.h> >> >> >> >> // compile out all test code if extensions disabled >> >> -#ifndef _RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_0X >> >> +#if !defined (_RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_0X) \ >> >> + && !defined(_RWSTD_NO_RVALUE_REFERENCES) >> > >> >Just to verify, your reasoning for this is that C++0x >> >extensions can be enabled but without support for rvalue references? >> > >> >If so, sounds reasonable. Just wanted to double check. >> > >> >Brad. >> > >
