On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 12/08/14 17:30, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I'm not entirely sure how piglit build with gcc as is, yet VC compiler >>>> seems very unhappy about this. >>> >>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf >>> >>> See 7.9 Alternate spellings <iso646.h>. I guess that gets included by >>> gcc somehow. >>> >> Thank Ilia, we live and we learn :) >> >> The heading states "Committee Draft — May 6, 2005", so I take that the final >> document has (almost) zero changes comparing to this draft ? Or perhaps there >> is no official version ? > > No, I'm just lazy and pick the first link a search engine finds. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_alternative_tokens > > This thing is quite old -- 1995 amendment to C90.
Oh, and I didn't notice this was actually a C++ file. In C++ those things got an upgrade, they're actually part of the language as built-in operators: """ The above mentioned identifiers are operator keywords in the ISO C++ programming language and do not require the inclusion of a header file. """ So it's a bit weird that MSVC doesn't like them... perhaps it doesn't like trigraphs either... _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit