Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> 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 compiler.mk can map those standards to the right flags and versions, or fail. In the case of gnuc++11 c++11 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