User forums > Help
-std=c++11 not working (CB12.11)
stahta01:
--- Quote from: Alpha on April 22, 2013, 12:12:01 am ---Is there a bug here that needs solving? Or is this just a configuration problem?
--- End quote ---
It has always worked this way for me; no idea what configuration setting to check.
Does it work for you on Windows?
Tim S.
scarphin:
--- Quote from: Alpha on April 22, 2013, 12:12:01 am ---Is there a bug here that needs solving? Or is this just a configuration problem?
--- End quote ---
'-std=c++11' entry isn't saved in 'other options' nor it goes into 'compiler flags' and in the end it's not inserted into the resulting command string so I think that's not the intended behavior.
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: jens on April 21, 2013, 07:13:25 pm ---It should go (automatically) into "Compiler flags".
--- End quote ---
Are you sure? IMHO the philosophy is/was as follows:
If a user provided a compiler flag that is present in the checkable list of compiler switches to "other options", then we are in trouble: Checkable list defines the switch as "off", other options as "on". In that case the checkable compiler switches over-rule the other options.
So to make it simple: Never put options that are available in the checkable list of compiler switches (the check-boxes) into other options. This is by design.
osdt:
--- Quote from: MortenMacFly on April 22, 2013, 03:03:14 pm ---
--- Quote from: jens on April 21, 2013, 07:13:25 pm ---It should go (automatically) into "Compiler flags".
--- End quote ---
Are you sure? IMHO the philosophy is/was as follows:
If a user provided a compiler flag that is present in the checkable list of compiler switches to "other options", then we are in trouble: Checkable list defines the switch as "off", other options as "on". In that case the checkable compiler switches over-rule the other options.
So to make it simple: Never put options that are available in the checkable list of compiler switches (the check-boxes) into other options. This is by design.
--- End quote ---
I'm using CB for at least two years now and never noticed [1] this 'feature'. If CB silently removes '-Wall' from 'other options' and does not turn on the checkable switch at the same time, it's definitely a bug by design!
What if '-fexceptions' becomes a checkable switch some day?
@ devs: please never modify user-specified values silently, ask for it beforehand ;D
- osdt
[1] most likely because I use one line for related options ... '-Wall -Wextra ...'
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: osdt on April 22, 2013, 08:33:44 pm ---If CB silently removes '-Wall' from 'other options' and does not turn on the checkable switch at the same time, it's definitely a bug by design!
What if '-fexceptions' becomes a checkable switch some day?
--- End quote ---
No problem: At runtime, when you load a project file its managed correctly as the options are being sorted into the appropriate settings. So, if we decide to change an option (i.e. move it to "default") its no problem after you updated C::B and re-opening the project file.
In a single run, however, there is no way to find out what you mean when you tell the compiler on one setting page to enable and on the other to disable an option. What ever magic we do here is wrong in 50% of the cases. How would you decide in such a case?
Thus we decided to for for it the way it is now. In addition its more intuitive as most user search the default options in the first place.
The only fail-save way I see is to disable the check-boxes completely and force the user to enter all these flags on one page only. Hence especially newbies will cry then and never learn what a compiler can do for you. So in the end: Its not an option.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version