| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Elliot Chance <elliotchance(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |
| Date: | 2010-12-27 19:13:33 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinO-5sTeTcdQ6b2SOa0YK4eB0YeZb1MmXMAmHv1@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
I hope that we don't make the mistake of not checking for collisions
with C++0x keywords, for which GCC 4.3+ has partial support. The new
standard is almost complete, so it will probably become a lot more
relevant soon. There are quite a few new keywords in C++0x, including:
constexpr
decltype
nullptr
static_assert
Perhaps we should add -std=c++0x to the g++ command in
cpluspluscheck.sh . Since C++0x is “almost 100-percent compatible with
the existing Standard C++” according to no less an authority than
Bjarne Stroustrup, this seems sensible.
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-27 19:17:57 | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-12-27 19:00:37 | Re: Working with v8.3.4 DB using v9.0.1 software |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-27 19:17:57 | Re: C++ keywords in headers (was Re: [GENERAL] #include <funcapi.h>) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-27 19:06:52 | Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either |