From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22996 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2012 08:55:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 22979 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Mar 2012 08:55:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:55:16 +0000 From: "eu at doxos dot eu" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/52485] [c++11] add an option to disable c++11 user-defined literals Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:55:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: eu at doxos dot eu X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00396.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D52485 --- Comment #2 from V=C3=A1clav =C5=A0milauer 2012-03-= 05 08:55:12 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > I think we should not have an option to disable user-defined literals at = all.=20 > Since their code is not C++11, they should fix their code to be C++11 if = they > use the -std=3Dc++11/-std++0x option. You were right in an ideal world. OTOH it is a point where c++11 breaks backward-compatibility with legal c++03 code; therefore, as an interim solu= tion before "they" fix "their" code (think how long does it take before Qt fixes their code and the fixes come downstream? A year?), optinally disabling this feature would be useful. The fix is always putting some extra spaces in macro definitions; it can (w= ill) be hacked around on a case-by-case basis and that is ugly.