incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r673865 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities: 20.forward.cpp 20.tuple.cnstr.cpp 20.tuple.creation.cpp 20.tuple.elem.cpp 20.tuple.helpers.cpp 20.tuple.rel.cpp
Date Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:18:05 GMT
Eric Lemings wrote:
>  
> I think there should be an implicit #define directive in <rw/_defs.h>:
> 
> 	#if defined _RWSTD_NO_VARIADIC_TEMPLATES
> 	    //|| defined _RWSTD_NO_RVALUE_REFERENCES if actually
> required for C++0x extensions
> 	#  define _RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_0X
> 	#endif
> 
> What does everyone think?

I think it's unnecessary and possibly undesirable. There might be
C++ 0x components that compile without variadic templates, either
because they don't need them (e.g., Random Number Generators) or
because we've provided workarounds (e.g., Type Traits).

Martin

> 
> Brad.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Travis Vitek 
>> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:00 PM
>> To: Eric Lemings
>> Subject: RE: svn commit: r673865 - in 
>> /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities: 20.forward.cpp 
>> 20.tuple.cnstr.cpp 20.tuple.creation.cpp 20.tuple.elem.cpp 
>> 20.tuple.helpers.cpp 20.tuple.rel.cpp
>>
>>
>> Yes, I'm porting to aCC and none of the tuple tests compile 
>> (lack of rvalue reference). Actually, now that I think about 
>> it I should probably have added a check for variadic templates. Ugh.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Eric Lemings 
>>> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:02 AM
>>> To: Travis Vitek
>>> Subject: RE: svn commit: r673865 - in 
>>> /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities: 20.forward.cpp 
>>> 20.tuple.cnstr.cpp 20.tuple.creation.cpp 20.tuple.elem.cpp 
>>> 20.tuple.helpers.cpp 20.tuple.rel.cpp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: vitek@apache.org [mailto:vitek@apache.org] 
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:26 PM
>>>> To: commits@stdcxx.apache.org
>>>> Subject: svn commit: r673865 - in 
>>>> /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities: 20.forward.cpp 
>>>> 20.tuple.cnstr.cpp 20.tuple.creation.cpp 20.tuple.elem.cpp 
>>>> 20.tuple.helpers.cpp 20.tuple.rel.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Author: vitek
>>>> Date: Thu Jul  3 16:26:24 2008
>>>> New Revision: 673865
>>>>
>>> ...
>>>> Modified: stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp
>>>> URL: 
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utili
>>>> ties/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp?rev=673865&r1=673864&r2=673865&view=diff
>>>> ==============================================================
>>>> ================
>>>> --- stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp 
>>>> (original)
>>>> +++ stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp 
>>>> Thu Jul  3 16:26:24 2008
>>>> @@ -29,7 +29,8 @@
>>>>  #include <rw_driver.h>
>>>>  
>>>>  // compile out all test code if extensions disabled
>>>> -#ifndef _RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_0X
>>>> +#if    !defined (_RWSTD_NO_EXT_CXX_0X) \
>>>> +    && !defined(_RWSTD_NO_RVALUE_REFERENCES)
>>> Just to verify, your reasoning for this is that C++0x 
>>> extensions can be enabled but without support for rvalue references?
>>>
>>> If so, sounds reasonable.  Just wanted to double check.
>>>
>>> Brad.
>>>


Mime
View raw message