Skip to content

Conversation

@TedLyngmo
Copy link
Contributor

Also changed the build instruction from -DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=20 to -DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=23.

Also changed the build instruction from -DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=20 to
-DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=23.

Signed-off-by: Ted Lyngmo <[email protected]>
```text
# Configure build
$ cmake -S . -B build -DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=20
$ cmake -S . -B build -DCMAKE_CXX_STANDARD=23
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was the motivation on changing the standard level to 23? I didn't think this implementation required anything in 23 -- except maybe constexpr which probably depends on 26.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@JeffGarland consteval is the thing

Copy link
Member

@JeffGarland JeffGarland Jan 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok - should that be conditional in the implementation? I mean I get that there's a lot of interest in this at constexpr/eval time -- but lets not forget it's useful for earlier c++ at runtime

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, it will not compile in pre C++23 mode so, C++23 unconditionally.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well, I'm sure with enough macro magic that wouldn't be the case. Obviously with degraded functionality. And to be clear, not trying to be difficult but just explore what's reasonable/possible. Anyway, all good please proceed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We changed implementation. C++20 support in doc was for the previous implementation, I must have missed this when switching implementation. I will explore this after #55 is done.

@wusatosi
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

Copy link
Member

@wusatosi wusatosi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for your contribution!

@wusatosi wusatosi merged commit f4436e3 into bemanproject:main Jan 18, 2025
11 checks passed
@TedLyngmo TedLyngmo deleted the missing_header_cstdlib branch June 28, 2025 00:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants