On Aug 12, 2011, at 15:08, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 12/08/11 23:34, Kinkie wrote: >> Hi, >> Gnu++0x looks good, but then what about non-gnu compilers? Oh WHY do >> they have to be strict ANSI? I curse thee, standards committee! >> > > One of the benefits we gain is eyeballs on all these problems and a reason to > document all the weirdness. > > FWIW; I skipped gnu++0x after reading the list of features they supported > which are still experimental or were rejected from the spec. > > The tests detect both of them properly, but so far only enables the -std set > so we only get the pieces which are officially accepted. >
Do not get hung up on c++0x, it's the same problem with c++98 vs. gnu++98. The C++ standards do not accept long long. -- Pawel
