Re: [boost] [Config] Macros for the absence of a full C++11 <memory> implementation

Subject: Re: [boost] [Config] Macros for the absence of a full C++11 <memory> implementation
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-10 20:46:25

Glen Fernandes wrote:
> > Perhaps, we currently have <memory> broken up into chunks for 
> > config-testing as a lot of non-connected things were added for C++11:
> >
> > BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALLOCATOR
> > BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC_SMART_PTR
> > BOOST_NO_CXX11_SMART_PTR
> >
> > But as you've noticed, those don't cover the whole thing.  So I guess 
> > the question is do you really want a macro for a *fully* conforming 
> > <memory> or another test for a new subset?
>
> The latter is preferable; e.g. BOOST_NO_CXX11_ALIGN (or a more appropriate 
> identifier) indicating the absence of std::align. It just felt a little 
> wrong to desire a macro for just one function though.

The above three macros, plus the additional BOOST_NO_CXX11_STD_ALIGN, would 
cover the whole C++11 <memory> except for the reachability functions (which 
nobody needs)... and std::addressof, which is pretty useful. Perhaps we need 
to add BOOST_NO_CXX11_ADDRESSOF while we're at it.