On 12/08/14 22:21, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > 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... > From the wikipedia article:
""" For consistency, the C++98 standard provides the header <ciso646>. However the latter file has no effect, being empty.[1] Notwithstanding some compilers, such as Microsoft Visual C++, do require the header to be included in order to use these identifiers. """ I guess I was kind of asking for it by compiling piglit with the latest and greatest MSVC :) Thanks again. Emil _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
