On 3/24/2016 3:39 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
>> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
>> the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I un
On 3/24/2016 4:16 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:54, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>>
>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> ...
>>> It fails without -std=c++11 (there's more discussion in that link and in
>>> PR 205453).
>>
>> Yeah, I also commented on PR 205453 in the pa
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:54, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>
> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote:
...
>> It fails without -std=c++11 (there's more discussion in that link and in
>> PR 205453).
>
> Yeah, I also commented on PR 205453 in the past, but I still don't
> understand where the externa
On 3/24/2016 4:13 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> Well _Static_assert is C++11 and static_assert is C11.
Yes I have it backwards, same point though.
--
Regards,
Bryan Drewery
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 3/24/2016 3:54 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> On 3/24/2016 3:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++1
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:51, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> On 3/24/2016 3:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>> On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
now? We do this
On 3/24/2016 3:45 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
>>> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
>>>
On 3/24/2016 3:44 PM, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
>> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
>> the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I unders
> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> On 3/24/2016 3:39 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
>>> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it do
On 24 Mar 2016, at 23:36, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
> the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I understand, we require c++11
> to build clang/libc++.
On 3/24/2016 3:39 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
>> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
>> the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I un
> On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>
> Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
> now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
> the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I understand, we require c++11
> to build clang/lib
Is there any problem with forcing -std=c++11 for all CXX/LIB_CXX builds
now? We do this when using an external GCC since it doesn't default to
the c++11 standard quite yet. As far as I understand, we require c++11
to build clang/libc++.
It seems to be the problem at
https://lists.freebsd.org/pip
13 matches
Mail list logo
