On Friday 10 February 2012 14:03:06 Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:56 +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > What the code is attempting to do is provide its own "nullptr" if it isn't
> > being provided as part of the language:
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > #if __has_feature(cxx_nullptr) || (GCC_VERSION_AT_LEAST(4, 6, 0) &&
> > defined(__GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__)) || (defined(_MSC_VER) && _MSC_VER >=
> > 1600 && !COMPILER(INTEL))
> >
> > #define HAVE_NULLPTR 1
> >
> > #else
> >
> > namespace std {
> >
> > class nullptr_t { };
> >
> > }
> >
> > extern std::nullptr_t nullptr;
> >
> > #endif
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > gcc 4.6 is preempting this and complaining about the use of the
> > identifier. I don't think renaming it is going to be acceptable upstream
> > either.
> Does it work if you build with -std=c++0x?
It does, yes (well, compiling the above code on its own anyway).
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
