A long time back I was asked for a bunch of new config macros which have finally now been added: BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR The standard library does not provide a C++11 version of `std::allocator` in <memory>. BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC_SP The standard library <memory> does not support atomic smart pointer operations. BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_FUNCTIONAL The standard library does not provide a C++11 compatible version of <functional>. BOOST_NO_CXX11_SMART_PTR The standard library header <memory> has no shared_ptr and unique_ptr. Enjoy, John.
On 22 April 2012 12:14, John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net> wrote:
A long time back I was asked for a bunch of new config macros which have finally now been added:
BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR The standard library does not provide a C++11 version of `std::allocator` in <memory>.
Can this be used to check for std::allocator_traits?
A long time back I was asked for a bunch of new config macros which have finally now been added:
BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR The standard library does not provide a C++11 version of `std::allocator` in <memory>.
Can this be used to check for std::allocator_traits?
That's the intention yes. Currently though that macro is set for all compilers/std libraries, does anyone support that yet? John.
On 22 April 2012 13:23, John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net> wrote:
A long time back I was asked for a bunch of new config macros which have finally now been added:
BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR The standard library does not provide a C++11 version of `std::allocator` in <memory>.
Can this be used to check for std::allocator_traits?
That's the intention yes. Currently though that macro is set for all compilers/std libraries, does anyone support that yet?
I think GCC 4.7 does. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html says that is includes "implementations of pointer_traits, allocator_traits and scoped_allocator_adaptor".
BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR The standard library does not provide a C++11 version of `std::allocator` in <memory>.
Can this be used to check for std::allocator_traits?
That's the intention yes. Currently though that macro is set for all compilers/std libraries, does anyone support that yet?
I think GCC 4.7 does. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html says that is includes "implementations of pointer_traits, allocator_traits and scoped_allocator_adaptor".
I hadn't realised it had been released yet.... release notes look like they've added quite a lot of C++11 stuff, I'll have to see what defect macros we can undef for it ;-) I don't suppose there's any news on gcc making c++11 mode the default? It would surely speed the adoption of C++11 code? John.
[John Maddock]
BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR The standard library does not provide a C++11 version of `std::allocator` in <memory>.
[Daniel James]
Can this be used to check for std::allocator_traits?
[John Maddock]
That's the intention yes. Currently though that macro is set for all compilers/std libraries, does anyone support that yet?
[Daniel James]
I think GCC 4.7 does. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html says that is includes "implementations of pointer_traits, allocator_traits and scoped_allocator_adaptor".
VC11 also implements pointer_traits/allocator_traits/scoped_allocator_adaptor. Stephan T. Lavavej Visual C++ Libraries Developer
On Apr 22, 2012, at 4:14 AM, John Maddock wrote:
A long time back I was asked for a bunch of new config macros which have finally now been added:
BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR The standard library does not provide a C++11 version of `std::allocator` in <memory>. BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC_SP The standard library <memory> does not support atomic smart pointer operations. BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_FUNCTIONAL The standard library does not provide a C++11 compatible version of <functional>. BOOST_NO_CXX11_SMART_PTR The standard library header <memory> has no shared_ptr and unique_ptr.
Enjoy, John.
John -- I'd like to use BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_FUNCTIONAL in the Boost.Algorithm library. Is it ok if I add checks for std::any_of/all_of/none_of, etc to boost_no_cxx_hdr_functional.ipp ? -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki
On May 7, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Marshall Clow wrote:
I'd like to use BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_FUNCTIONAL in the Boost.Algorithm library. Is it ok if I add checks for std::any_of/all_of/none_of, etc to boost_no_cxx_hdr_functional.ipp ?
any_of is in <algorithm>, not <functional>.
Man, I must still be on vacation in my mind. Of course it is. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki
Marshall Clow wrote:
On May 7, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Marshall Clow wrote:
I'd like to use BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_FUNCTIONAL in the Boost.Algorithm library. Is it ok if I add checks for std::any_of/all_of/none_of, etc to boost_no_cxx_hdr_functional.ipp ?
any_of is in <algorithm>, not <functional>.
Man, I must still be on vacation in my mind. Of course it is.
Some tests of Boost.Algorithm fail on clang trunk in a C++11 mode. This is because any_of.hpp/all_of.hpp/none_of.hpp, etc. don't include <algorithm>. Regards, Michel
On May 13, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Michel Morin wrote:
Marshall Clow wrote:
On May 7, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
Marshall Clow wrote:
I'd like to use BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_FUNCTIONAL in the Boost.Algorithm library. Is it ok if I add checks for std::any_of/all_of/none_of, etc to boost_no_cxx_hdr_functional.ipp ?
any_of is in <algorithm>, not <functional>.
Man, I must still be on vacation in my mind. Of course it is.
Some tests of Boost.Algorithm fail on clang trunk in a C++11 mode. This is because any_of.hpp/all_of.hpp/none_of.hpp, etc. don't include <algorithm>.
Fixed in revision 78466. Thanks! -- Marshall Marshall Clow Idio Software <mailto:mclow.lists@gmail.com> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait). -- Yu Suzuki
--- trunk/boost/algorithm/cxx11/partition_point.hpp (original) +++ trunk/boost/algorithm/cxx11/partition_point.hpp 2012-05-14 00:58:22 EDT (Mon, 14 May 2012) @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
#include <algorithm> // for std::partition_point, if available
+#include <algorithm> // for std::partition_point, if available #include <boost/range/begin.hpp> #include <boost/range/end.hpp>
Looks like partition_point.hpp already included <algorithm> ;) Line 24 of this file also has a typo (iota --> partition_point). Regards, Michel
participants (6)
-
Daniel James -
John Maddock -
Marshall Clow -
Michel Morin -
Peter Dimov -
Stephan T. Lavavej