Brad King wrote: > On 10/11/2013 10:56 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: >> I assume so. The only flag I'm aware of for XL is -qlanglvl=extended0x, >> and that is equivalent to -std=c++11 afaik. What are you referring to >> specifically? > > I was just touching back on the issue you originally raised about > -qlanglvl=extended0x.
Oh, I see. You're referring to a comment in the branch which I also pasted here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.programming.tools.cmake.devel/8115/focus=8126 The problem would only occur if the alternative in that comment was the way forward. I believe the XL case fits into the currently-discussed form of the feature well. > >> I'm in favor of sticking close to the defaults of the compiler. The user >> shouldn't have to tell CMake to use the extension if that is the default >> for the compiler anyway, just as a penalty for telling CMake about >> requiring variadic templates. > > If it is a cross-platform project then it should not depend on > a non-standard language feature without saying so. Once a > project starts using the target_compiler_feature command then > it should be aware of the implications. Ok, good point. Thanks, Steve. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
