Sounds good to me, but shouldn't it be "ENABLE_C_POSIX_COMPLIANCE?"
Then, when we decide on what it should be, we can define a
"ENABLE_CXX_POSIX_COMPLIANCE" option.
I was thinking just one flag to mean either/both, similar to how ENABLE_STRICT basically means "use -Werror everywhere we can" but it applies to C/C++ code and has to be disabled in some dirs where it's a work in progress, etc. It would be a flag to force some level of standards compliance greater than our default, and we could use that flag to help us keep pressing forward no matter what standard or code (language) we're chasing next.
It would sort of mean "compile even more strict / portable than our default", and what that actually means would necessarily change over time as we fix up sections of the code.
Cheers!
Sean
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
