Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 20:46:35 +0930 From: Shane Ambler <FreeBSD@ShaneWare.Biz> To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> Cc: FreeBSD-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libc++ differences between 9.2 and 10.0 Message-ID: <523C2E93.5010104@ShaneWare.Biz> In-Reply-To: <20130920102002.74f42edf@bsd64.grem.de> References: <523BDDCE.4060801@ShaneWare.Biz> <20130920102002.74f42edf@bsd64.grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20/09/2013 17:50, Michael Gmelin wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:01:58 +0930 > Shane Ambler <FreeBSD@ShaneWare.Biz> wrote: > >> I'm Starting to look at fixing my ports to build on 10.0 and there >> appears to be a difference between 9.2 and 10.0 when it comes to >> using libc++ >> >> The first port I am looking at is graphics/opencolorio. a patch was >> submitted (ports/182220) that works fine on 10.0 but it breaks 9.2 >> build when using clang with - >> error: no type named 'shared_ptr' in namespace 'std' >> >> The patch is simple, just adding - >> >> #elif __cplusplus >= 199711 >> #include <memory> >> #define OCIO_SHARED_PTR std::shared_ptr >> #define OCIO_DYNAMIC_POINTER_CAST std::dynamic_pointer_cast >> >> As far as I can see both 10.0 and 9.2 use the same contrib/libc++ >> contents but I don't see why 9.2 isn't finding std::shared_ptr >> >> >> The other thing is I don't think testing __cplusplus is the right way >> to go but don't see an alternative. __cplusplus is defined in clang >> irrespective of the library used so isn't really a reliable test. >> >> Are there any defines to easily test for std::shared_ptr or is that a >> test I need to create for configure or cmake - has already been done? > > Hi Shane, > > I looks like you're using libstdc++ on 9.2 (the version that comes with > gcc 4.2). To build with libc++ you need to use > > CXXFLAGS+= -std=c++11 -stdlib=libc++. I tried adding that to the Makefile as well as LDFLAGS+= -stdlib=libc++ Just realised that I put them in a test for OSVERSION between 901000 and 100000 - missed a zero for 10 so it wasn't used ;-) my fault > Checking for _cplusplus isn't enough, since this only checks for the > language standard, but not for standard c++ library used. > > First you should check for a C++11 enabled compiled (you're checking > for C++98, which didn't standardize std::shared_ptr) > > #elif __cplusplus >= 201103 > > Then you should also check which standard library is used (in the end > you can mix clang C++11 and an old C++ standard library): > > #elif _cplusplus >= 201103 && defined(_LIBCPP_VERSION) > > This checks if libc++ is used. > > Since all relevant version of libc++ support C++11 features like > shared_ptr this should be good enough. That sounds like a reasonable option. > If you want to stay compatible with newer versions of gcc and libstdc++ > you'll have to figure out how to check for this as well (unfortunately > I can't tell the exact checks to use from the top of my head). > This expands tests for OCIO_USE_BOOST_PTR (windows) and __GNUC__ choosing between boost::shared_ptr and std::tr1:;shareed_ptr
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?523C2E93.5010104>