Note that "red" in the page does not always mean unsupported, but also that nobody tested if the feature is present.
> On 12. Aug 2019, at 14:07, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <k...@carewolf.com> wrote: > > On Monday, 12 August 2019 09:58:39 CEST Lars Knoll wrote: >> I’d personally be favour of using newer version of gcc/clang, but I’m not >> sure we gain a lot with it, as Apple clang is then probably the limiting >> factor. But we could upgrade that to Apple Clang 11 as well. > > Yeah, I was looking through > https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support > for good c++20 features we might chose to opt-in on. At first it looked like > there was a few promising options: > > explicit(bool): We use some ugly patterns in places to simulate this. > Requires gcc 9, clang 9, MSVC 19.22 > > char8_t: This has potential to break a bunch of stuff if we don't handle it > explicitly, as per previous discussion it might be hard to handle with ifdefs. > Requires gcc 9, clang 7, MSVC 19.22 > > Integrating feature-test macros: Could make >c++17 feature detection more > elegant. > Requires gcc 5, clang 3.4, MSVC 19.20 > > But then I noticed, they are all still missing from Apple clang 11 :( > > So, yes. Apple clang is the new minimum setter. What a world. > > 'Allan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development