On Tuesday 24 March 2015 19:20:35 René J.V. Bertin wrote: > On Tuesday March 24 2015 13:38:54 Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Thiago is proposing Option 2. In particular, the emphasized drawback; > > what is being removed is the ability to *prevent* Qt from enabling C++11 > > / C++14 mode if the compiler supports such a mode. It does *not* mean > > that Qt as a whole will require C++14. I think where the confusion is > > ... > > > Hopefully that helps clear things up... > > It does for me. > > I have no idea if there's a reason not to build in C++1n mode if the > compiler supports it, but if there is (ABI compatibility?), one could > simply have a single switch to deactivate that. I agree there's no use in > adding additional switches, of course.
There are no ABI compatibility issues because we disallow any code that would introduce such issues. That's why all move constructors and assignment operators, ref-qualified members need to be inline, for example. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
