[config] borland/codegear problems with C++0x macros
* trunk/boost/config/compiler/borland.hpp: It looks like John Maddock and I independently added C++0x macros. The resulting inconsistencies need to be reconciled. The BOOST_CODEGEAR_0X_SUPPORT macro doesn't appear to be documented, by the way. John, do you want to take a whack at this? * trunk/boost/config/compiler/codegear.hpp: Doesn't have the negative C++ macros yet. I'd like to borland.hpp finished before trying to do codegear.hpp. Thanks, --Beman
* trunk/boost/config/compiler/borland.hpp: It looks like John Maddock and I independently added C++0x macros. The resulting inconsistencies need to be reconciled. The BOOST_CODEGEAR_0X_SUPPORT macro doesn't appear to be documented, by the way.
John, do you want to take a whack at this?
Well I've had a go... the BOOST_CODEGEAR_0X_SUPPORT macro is entirely internal to that header BTW, it gets turned on when the -Ax compiler option is used.
* trunk/boost/config/compiler/codegear.hpp: Doesn't have the negative C++ macros yet. I'd like to borland.hpp finished before trying to do codegear.hpp.
It's basically the same as Borland.hpp, so I took a whack at that one as well, we'll see how the tests go. BTW BOOST_HAS_EXPLICIT_CONVERSION_OPS and BOOST_HAS_SCOPED_ENUM appear to have no new alternatives? John.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 12:12 PM, John Maddock <john@johnmaddock.co.uk> wrote:
* trunk/boost/config/compiler/borland.hpp: It looks like John Maddock and I independently added C++0x macros. The resulting inconsistencies need to be reconciled. The BOOST_CODEGEAR_0X_SUPPORT macro doesn't appear to be documented, by the way.
John, do you want to take a whack at this?
Well I've had a go...
Thanks!
the BOOST_CODEGEAR_0X_SUPPORT macro is entirely internal to that header BTW, it gets turned on when the -Ax compiler option is used.
Ah! # pragma defineonoption BOOST_CODEGEAR_0X_SUPPORT -Ax That's a new one to me. Live and learn.
* trunk/boost/config/compiler/codegear.hpp: Doesn't have the negative C++ macros yet. I'd like to borland.hpp finished before trying to do codegear.hpp.
It's basically the same as Borland.hpp, so I took a whack at that one as well, we'll see how the tests go.
Great!
BTW BOOST_HAS_EXPLICIT_CONVERSION_OPS and BOOST_HAS_SCOPED_ENUM appear to have no new alternatives?
They should be there: # define BOOST_NO_EXPLICIT_CONVERSION_OPERATORS ... # define BOOST_NO_SCOPED_ENUMS And they did get documented, too:-) I do need to check the gcc 4.4.x compiler series to make sure we are covering the features they added after the 4.3 series. And I expect a stream of C++0x features from all of the compiler vendors over the next year or so. With both GCC and Microsoft shipping 0x features, the others won't dare to be left behind:-) --Beman
participants (2)
-
Beman Dawes -
John Maddock