Re: A better method to require compiler features

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> Not quite. To fit with jperkin's idea that "compiler too old" is the
> sysadmin's responsibility to fix, any package requiring an unmet C++
> feature will set PKG_FAIL_REASON and be skipped in a bulk build.
>
> This provides a way to notify admins that they may want to consider
> bootstrapping a new compiler.

I see - that is a completely reasonable feature, to exist for someone to
opt into.

> The name does need more brainstorming -- perhaps
> FAIL_UNMET_CXX_REQUIREMENTS.

That is slightly lengthy, but on reading it, I get the right idea
without reading the documentation.

You didn't address c99 and other things that might be in the same class,
but it seems that the USE_CXX_FEATURES should have a USE_C_FEATURES
analog, with c99, c10(?) and whatever else has or will come along.  I
see that as both a good thing to do and necessary to adopt "don't put
c99 in USE_LANGUAGES".  I'm guessing you agree but the discussion has
just been about the harder case of C++?


Perhaps FAIL_UNMET_COMPILER_REQUIREMENTS?