Re: Can we assume C99?

2017-07-07 Thread Cantor, Scott
On 7/7/17, 3:45 AM, "Boris Kolpackov" wrote: > Perhaps we should do something like this for Xerces-C++, especially if > we plan to start migrating to C++11. In fact, this will be a great aid > to gradual migration since we can just start using new features if they > are

Re: Can we assume C99?

2017-07-07 Thread Boris Kolpackov
Cantor, Scott writes: > I don't know what the baseline has been for the code base, is C99 a > reasonable requirement? > > I need SIZE_MAX to fix some bounds checking errors, just need to know > if I need to waste time on an autoconf test for it. My experience has been that

Re: Can we assume C99?

2017-07-06 Thread Cantor, Scott
On 7/6/17, 5:54 PM, "Roger Leigh" wrote: > Interesting, I'll certainly take a look. I'm afraid I'm away until next > Wednesday, so I won't be able to do anything until then. If you want to check it, this is what I had to use on the autoconf side: #if

RE: Can we assume C99?

2017-07-06 Thread Cantor, Scott
> I wrote the Autoconf AC_PROG_CXX support for C++11 back in 2013 > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/ac/msg11596.html) but it appears not to > have made it into a stable release yet. It might be possible to take a > copy of the macro from Autoconf CVS. (This was before I discovered > CMake!) Seems

Re: Can we assume C99?

2017-07-06 Thread Roger Leigh
On 06/07/17 20:48, Cantor, Scott wrote: Visual Studio had somewhat lacking C99 support, so it might be problematic for older versions. It's not missing SIZE_MAX though, AFAIK, so Windows isn't really much of a concern there. OK, that's good news. Could we not use std::numeric_limits

Re: Can we assume C99?

2017-07-06 Thread Roger Leigh
On 06/07/17 21:28, Cantor, Scott wrote: Are you using C++11 in the cmake CI builds on Linux? Just curious...it seems to be detecting cstdint there but my autoconf test didn't due to that flag not being enabled. Yes. It's the set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 14) line. This tries to use C++14,

RE: Can we assume C99?

2017-07-06 Thread Cantor, Scott
Are you using C++11 in the cmake CI builds on Linux? Just curious...it seems to be detecting cstdint there but my autoconf test didn't due to that flag not being enabled. I don't think we have an autoconf check for it, so there's nothing to enable it if the compiler supports it. -- Scott

RE: Can we assume C99?

2017-07-06 Thread Cantor, Scott
> Visual Studio had somewhat lacking C99 support, so it might be problematic > for older versions. It's not missing SIZE_MAX though, AFAIK, so Windows isn't really much of a concern there. > Could we not use std::numeric_limits instead? It should work everywhere, > and should be better

Re: Can we assume C99?

2017-07-06 Thread Roger Leigh
Scott" <canto...@osu.edu> Date: 06/07/2017 16:04 (GMT+00:00) To: c-dev@xerces.apache.org Subject: Can we assume C99? I don't know what the baseline has been for the code base, is C99 a reasonable requirement? I need SIZE_MAX to fix some bounds checking errors, just need to know if

Can we assume C99?

2017-07-06 Thread Cantor, Scott
I don't know what the baseline has been for the code base, is C99 a reasonable requirement? I need SIZE_MAX to fix some bounds checking errors, just need to know if I need to waste time on an autoconf test for it. -- Scott -