Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Config] Macros for the absence of a full C++11 <memory> implementation
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-11 04:01:16

>> 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.

Would somebody like to produce a patch?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at