[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #8906] configure check support for c11 and c++11

[Carnë Draug]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #8906 (project octave):

A question on design of such macro. Is something like this acceptable?


AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX([11], [ext], [optional])
if test x$ac_success = xyes; then
  ## CXXFLAGS will already have $switch
  XTRA_CXXFLAGS="$XTRA_CXXFLAGS $switch"
fi


I don't really like it because it relies on undocumented internals of the
macro, but it's short, simple, and allow us to retain the existing macro from
the autoconf archive. And maybe it's ok in a macro language.

If not, then I'm not sure how to do it. Such macro needs to try several flags
and I'm not sure how to return which is the right flag to use. I can see that
no existing macro changes XTRA_CXXFLAGS so I'm guessing I shouldn't do it here
either.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8906>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/