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 available in all the suppo
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 supporting a standard
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 defined(__cplusplus) && XERCES_HAVE_CSTDIN
> 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
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 instea
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, then
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
> 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 supporte
Scott"
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 I need
to waste time
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
-
10 matches
Mail list logo
