Closed sbarthelemy closed 11 years ago
This commit removes the need for the USE_C11_STATIC_ASSERT option.
This option is annoying because
With this commit the compiler support for C++11-like static assert is inferred from 1) the __cplusplus version 2) the boost config library.
I checked that with gcc 4.6.3 and boost 1.50, it is able to detect when the -std=c++0x is provided or not to gcc.
If such support is detected, it is used.
If it is not available, but boost >1.40 is, boost implementation is used instead.
(Olivier reports that version 1.40 does not work, a link to a changelog or a bug report is welcome).
Otherwise a no-op implementation is defined.
This commit adds a dependancy on boost. Since we will soon depend on boost fusion anyway, I think it is ok.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_%28C_standard_revision%29
This commit removes the need for the USE_C11_STATIC_ASSERT option.
This option is annoying because
With this commit the compiler support for C++11-like static assert is inferred from 1) the __cplusplus version 2) the boost config library.
I checked that with gcc 4.6.3 and boost 1.50, it is able to detect when the -std=c++0x is provided or not to gcc.
If such support is detected, it is used.
If it is not available, but boost >1.40 is, boost implementation is used instead.
(Olivier reports that version 1.40 does not work, a link to a changelog or a bug report is welcome).
Otherwise a no-op implementation is defined.
This commit adds a dependancy on boost. Since we will soon depend on boost fusion anyway, I think it is ok.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_%28C_standard_revision%29