On 17 October 2017 at 16:54, Chuck Atkins <chuck.atk...@kitware.com> wrote: >> I also think adding a test for each C++11 feature used in the code is >> >> too tedious, regardless of the build system, and it would really need a >> dedicated maintainer. > > > Certainly. Rather than checking for everything, I think a code snippet that > just includes a few c++11-only headers would be sufficient and just assume > if those are there then you have a working c++11 std library. That's all > we're doing with the std=c++11 check anyways; i.e. we're assuming that > there's no need to specifically check for support of range-for loops and > lambda expressions separately. Partial standard implementation is less of > an issue these days I think than in the early C++11 years. > My take on the thread so far is - there's weird combos that will almost always be broken. Having brown tests and/or workarounds for everyone is impossible.
A compiler "accepting" C++11 code without having a runtime library provided, is an interesting example. That said, I think we can aim at: - step 1, cover the case that works for most people - step 2, if things are broken for A/B send patches clearly documented patches - compiler, version, platform, etc. - step 3, don't be afraid to deprecate/remove obsolete workarounds and do poke the affected people. That's just a personal take of course, so take it with a healthy pinch of salt. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
