tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: discussion seeked for c++ variants in USE_LANGUAGES

Joerg Sonnenberger <> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 07:46:04AM +0200, Richard PALO wrote:
>> Not finding much discussion about c++ variants in USE_LANGUAGES, I'd
>> like to open this topic with a proposal to add 'c++0x', 'c++11',
>> 'c++1y' and probably very soon 'c++14' where the default c++ (in gcc
>> at least) is c++98 plus extensions (aka gnu++98.
> c++0x should not be added, at most the compiler logic should use it for
> c++11. That said, I'm not sure how useful it is for older GCC version,
> given that e.g. GCC 4.5 is lacking a lot of the language features.
> The other consideration is whether the language standard should be
> gnuc++11 or c++11.

Without really thinking too hard, it seems obvious that each language
standard should have a name, and packages should declare what they
need.  Then, the can map those standards to the right flags
and versions, or fail.

In the case of


it seems that ideally programs would be written to the standard and
c++11 would be the right name.   But surely many programs rely on gnu
extensions, and they'd get gnuc++11 as a USE_LANGUAGES value.

I don't see why the set of compilers shipped with NetBSD matters much,
as this is about configuring all sorts of compilers on many systems to
compile each package.

Attachment: pgpIIzIZzjzWw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index