On 2015-02-17 10:38, Ola Liljedahl wrote: > On 17 February 2015 at 08:10, Simon Kågström > <simon.kagst...@netinsight.net> wrote: >> On 2015-02-16 18:19, bugzilla-dae...@bugs.linaro.org wrote: >>> Mike Holmes <mailto:mike.hol...@linaro.org> changed bug 300 >>> <https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300> >>> What Removed Added >>> Resolution --- WONTFIX >>> Status CONFIRMED RESOLVED >>> >>> *Comment # 5 <https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300#c5> on bug 300 >>> <https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300> from Mike Holmes >>> <mailto:mike.hol...@linaro.org> * >>> >>> pedantic has not been adopted for the ODP build flags, this will not be >>> fixed >>> at this time >> >> This is another thing which doesn't work when including ODP headers from >> C++ code. > When you write C++ I assume you mean C++ in general. But just like we > require C99 for C code (I wanted C11 because of the atomics support), > perhaps there is some suitable language level for C++ as well? I > assume C++ has a similar feature growth as C.
My particular example was built with --std=c++11. The example patch I submitted also uses static_assert which is from C++11, which might not be ideal. It would be nice (I'd say it's a reasonable requirement) if the API was compilable under at least >= C++03, and preferably >= C++98. While I'm really not an expert in the area, it's probably not difficult to maintain in ODP either - as long as the CI tests catch it in time. // Simon _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list lng-odp@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
