| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f |
| From: | Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
| Subject: | Re: internal compiler error with c++11 features on 4.6.2 |
| Date: | Sun, 27 Nov 2011 06:45:37 -0800 (PST) |
| Organization: | http://groups.google.com |
| Lines: | 21 |
| Message-ID: | <c6438915-77be-429d-b2a7-a4cacdb9f967@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com> |
| References: | <64237354-a1d5-4c03-b446-b7de61297344 AT a2g2000prb DOT googlegroups DOT com> <bc5e54a1-40b5-4737-a497-e6b74454968d AT l23g2000pro DOT googlegroups DOT com> |
| NNTP-Posting-Host: | 65.13.115.246 |
| Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
| X-Trace: | posting.google.com 1322405250 4900 127.0.0.1 (27 Nov 2011 14:47:30 GMT) |
| X-Complaints-To: | groups-abuse AT google DOT com |
| NNTP-Posting-Date: | Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC) |
| Complaints-To: | groups-abuse AT google DOT com |
| Injection-Info: | g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO |
| User-Agent: | G2/1.0 |
| X-Google-Web-Client: | true |
| X-Google-Header-Order: | HNKUARELSC |
| X-HTTP-UserAgent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/535.2 |
| (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/15.0.874.121 Safari/535.2,gzip(gfe) | |
| Bytes: | 2325 |
| To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
| DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
| X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id pARF02XV010342 |
| Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Hi, On Nov 26, 11:53 pm, jimm <jmich DOT DOT DOT AT yahoo DOT com> wrote: > > does 4.6.2 not support initializer lists and other c++0x stuff yet? I > need it desperately. my code base already requires this in several > programs, and the DOS platform is lagging behind. You have every right to be curious about C++11, but I don't see why you would put all your eggs in that basket, esp. considering how VERY new it is and incompletely implemented. I don't think any compiler comes close to conformance yet. So how desperate can you be? Aren't you the one writing the code? Somehow I just doubt C++98 was so woefully incomplete all these years as people still got work done. But (sigh), I guess progress always marches on. I'm just saying, "lagging behind" is a bit of a stretch, even for DOS. C++11 is just too new. Don't rely on it. Eventually things will get there in the rest of the world. But for now, it's too fresh. http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C++0xCompilerSupport
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |