Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > I'd like to introduce a different point in the discussion. > > I usually don't care about compiler versions, but about compiler > features. > > So I'd be more interested in a way to say: > I want c99/c++03/c++11/c++whatever > than specifying compiler versions. That's a fair point. We have c99 in USE_LANGUAGES. But we also have c++, and that's a bug, because c++ is a family of languages, not a language. On top of that c++03 vs c++11, there are sometimes requriements to need or avoid particular compiler versions because of bugs in the code or the compiler, but there may be relatively little of those issues once the vast amount of "needs c++11" is addressed. Your point doesn't get us out of the fundamental difficulty that it is unsound to mix c++ compilers. Perhaps we need to just define that USE_LANGUAGES=c++ means c++11 and force a c++11-compatible compiler (gcc 4.8?).
Description: PGP signature