Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-27 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 25 Mar 2016, at 00:18, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > On 3/24/2016 4:16 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:54, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>> >>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> ... It fails without

CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-25 Thread Mark Millard
[Just a few notes related to some points in the exchange.] powerpc and powerpc64 are in the same boat as mips and sparc for clang's overall status: clang does not work yet, independent of any FreeBSD issues that might exist if clang's code generation was okay. (See

Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Bryan Drewery
On 3/24/2016 4:16 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:54, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> >> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote: > ... >>> It fails without -std=c++11 (there's more discussion in that link and in >>> PR 205453). >> >>

Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:54, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote: ... >> It fails without -std=c++11 (there's more discussion in that link and in >> PR 205453). > > Yeah, I also commented on PR 205453 in the past, but I

Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Bryan Drewery
On 3/24/2016 4:13 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: > Well _Static_assert is C++11 and static_assert is C11. Yes I have it backwards, same point though. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Bryan Drewery
On 3/24/2016 3:54 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> >> On 3/24/2016 3:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>> On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote: >

Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > On 3/24/2016 3:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: >>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote: Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for

Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Bryan Drewery
On 3/24/2016 3:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: >> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>> >>> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds >>> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it

Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Bryan Drewery
On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> >> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds >> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to >> the c++11 standard quite

Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Dimitry Andric
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds > now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to > the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I understand, we require c++11 >

Re: CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Warner Losh
> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds > now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to > the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I understand, we require

CXXSTD=c++11

2016-03-24 Thread Bryan Drewery
Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I understand, we require c++11 to build clang/libc++. It seems to be the problem at