On 20/09/2013 17:50, Michael Gmelin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:01:58 +0930
Shane Ambler <free...@shaneware.biz> wrote:
I'm Starting to look at fixing my ports to build on 10.0 and there
appears to be a difference between 9.2 and 10.0 when it comes to
using libc++
The first port I am looking at is graphics/opencolorio. a patch was
submitted (ports/182220) that works fine on 10.0 but it breaks 9.2
build when using clang with -
error: no type named 'shared_ptr' in namespace 'std'
The patch is simple, just adding -
#elif __cplusplus >= 199711
#include <memory>
#define OCIO_SHARED_PTR std::shared_ptr
#define OCIO_DYNAMIC_POINTER_CAST std::dynamic_pointer_cast
As far as I can see both 10.0 and 9.2 use the same contrib/libc++
contents but I don't see why 9.2 isn't finding std::shared_ptr
The other thing is I don't think testing __cplusplus is the right way
to go but don't see an alternative. __cplusplus is defined in clang
irrespective of the library used so isn't really a reliable test.
Are there any defines to easily test for std::shared_ptr or is that a
test I need to create for configure or cmake - has already been done?
Hi Shane,
I looks like you're using libstdc++ on 9.2 (the version that comes with
gcc 4.2). To build with libc++ you need to use
CXXFLAGS+= -std=c++11 -stdlib=libc++.
I tried adding that to the Makefile as well as LDFLAGS+= -stdlib=libc++
Just realised that I put them in a test for OSVERSION between 901000
and 100000 - missed a zero for 10 so it wasn't used ;-) my fault
Checking for _cplusplus isn't enough, since this only checks for the
language standard, but not for standard c++ library used.
First you should check for a C++11 enabled compiled (you're checking
for C++98, which didn't standardize std::shared_ptr)
#elif __cplusplus >= 201103
>
Then you should also check which standard library is used (in the end
you can mix clang C++11 and an old C++ standard library):
#elif _cplusplus >= 201103 && defined(_LIBCPP_VERSION)
This checks if libc++ is used.
Since all relevant version of libc++ support C++11 features like
shared_ptr this should be good enough.
That sounds like a reasonable option.
If you want to stay compatible with newer versions of gcc and libstdc++
you'll have to figure out how to check for this as well (unfortunately
I can't tell the exact checks to use from the top of my head).
This expands tests for OCIO_USE_BOOST_PTR (windows) and __GNUC__
choosing between boost::shared_ptr and std::tr1:;shareed_ptr
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
