Oha. Learned something new. I will try this!
I think we should work in the direction of the standard guideline that is
published by Barne Stourstupe. That will lead us to c++11.
I think that will prepare us for the future.
We move slowly anyway.
Am 26. März 2018 08:20:06 MESZ schrieb Don Lewis
On 26 Mar, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Don't we use C++ 2003?
Good question. That version is not listed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html
Under the C++98 section it does mention that the 2003 modifications are
supported with -std=c++98 and -std=gnu++98.
That version is also not li
On 26 Mar, Peter kovacs wrote:
> I had to build with -std=c++11 on gcc 7.
> C++98 did not work as far as I remeber.
> C++17 did lead also to failure I believe.
>
> So I think we use features from the partial support already.
I think we are depending on some GNU extensions to C++98, so our code is
Don't we use C++ 2003?
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
> I had to build with -std=c++11 on gcc 7.
> C++98 did not work as far as I remeber.
> C++17 did lead also to failure I believe.
>
> So I think we use features from the partial support already.
>
> Am 26. März 2018 03:03
I had to build with -std=c++11 on gcc 7.
C++98 did not work as far as I remeber.
C++17 did lead also to failure I believe.
So I think we use features from the partial support already.
Am 26. März 2018 03:03:56 MESZ schrieb Don Lewis :
>On 25 Mar, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> What version of the C+
On 25 Mar, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> What version of the C++ standard should we code to?
At least for now, C++ 98. The version of gcc in CentOS 6 only has
partial support for C++ 0x.
Our Windows build instructions currently recommend a 2007 version of the
compiler and libraries, which predate t
What version of the C++ standard should we code to?
For example, can the move to STL use features that were added in C++ 11?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h.
