Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #39975, comment 9
- Timestamp:
- Nov 11, 2013, 9:38:16 AM (11 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #39975, comment 9
initial v1 1 1 Replying to [comment:8 jfcaron@…]: 2 > I would like to revive this ticket and add to the request that the flag not just be for --enable-cxx11, but to make root link against libcxx instead of libgcc. The basic problem is that even if you compile the root port using a modern compiler that supports C++11, the libgcc library doesn't. Try using a list initializer in a compiled ROOT macro and it doesn't compile.2 > I would like to revive this ticket and add to the request that the flag not just be for `--enable-cxx11`, but to make root link against libcxx instead of libgcc. The basic problem is that even if you compile the root port using a modern compiler that supports C++11, the libgcc library doesn't. Try using a list initializer in a compiled ROOT macro and it doesn't compile. 3 3 > 4 4 > Whatever the ultimate solution is, I would like this line of code: 5 5 > 6 > {{{ 6 7 > static const vector<int> v = {1,2,3}; 8 > }}} 7 9 > 8 > to compile using ACLiC with root fresh-from-macports without special gSystem->SetMakeSharedLibstuff. Language support for C++11 without library support only takes us so far.10 > to compile using ACLiC with root fresh-from-macports without `special gSystem->SetMakeSharedLib` stuff. Language support for C++11 without library support only takes us so far. 9 11 10 12 Yes. I suggest that we enable C++11 support based on what the C++ runtime is. If the user is using libc++, we should enable it.