[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [patch #8613] Simplify _AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX_11_testbody

From: Matan Nassau
Subject: Re: [patch #8613] Simplify _AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX_11_testbody
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:59:52 +0000

The value is in removing lines of code while maintaining correctness.

If you find now a compiler in the wild that violates the standard with regard to this define then you can prepend a check against that compiler. I think you'd still win in terms of code removed. We're talking here about a check for C++11: There's a standard-conforming, idiomatic way to do that, that as a bonus is short, simple, and fast.

I think that if a check for support for double right-angle in a template line is useful, it should be served as a dedicated macro. If a check for support for && is useful, it should be served as a dedicated macro. But even then, a macro that checks for C++11 can do its thing without aggregating all these dedicated little packages for specific C++11 features. It can do its thing with less code and less work than that.


On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM Peter Simons <address@hidden> wrote:
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #8613 (project autoconf-archive):

I tend to agree with Peter Johansson in so far that Autoconf traditionally
checks whether certain features work by *trying them* rather than by looking
at the compiler version, etc. The advantage of these practical tests is that
they tend to produce reliable results for any kind of compiler, whereas the
latter approach works only for compilers that are known to the macro.

Now, I realize that your patch doesn't suffer from that disadvantage, because
it uses a well known CPP define rather that a list of known compilers. Still,
it's vulnerable to compilers declaring that define incorrectly.

All things considered, I don't quite see what value this refactoring adds. If
there were a specific use case that works with the new code but didn't work
with the old code, then it would be fine IMHO to put the philosophical issue
aside. I'm just not aware of any such concrete benefits from applying this


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]