This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 11, 2023. It is now read-only.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 89
MSVC STL version check #149
Merged
DuncanMcBain merged 7 commits into codeplaysoftware:master from MathiasMagnus:msvc-stl-check Nov 26, 2018
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
e54751e Added check of MSVC STL compat
MathiasMagnus d744675 Fix argument passing to MSVC STL check
MathiasMagnus 2ed1a98 Indentation fixes
MathiasMagnus 3c161db More indent fixes (hopefully last)
MathiasMagnus 52b9b7b Fix and simplify force-include for MSVC
MathiasMagnus 90b39ff Changed tab to spaces
MathiasMagnus 083d030 Made changes along the lines of Duncan's suggestions
MathiasMagnus File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed. Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes. Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. Outdated suggestions cannot be applied. This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge. Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since this whole code section is MSVC-specific, I think I'd be happier if it was part of an opt-in module (i.e. its own file). I feel like that would be a better reflection of the separation of concerns here - it could be called MSVCVersionCheck or similar, and that way users targetting '17 know that they have to deal with it (similarly, once the compiler is updated, they can remove it again).
Let me know what you think!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm generally okay with all this being moved to a file of its own. I'm not sure how many such changes are needed. There is a brief GCC-related test at the beginning, which for the sake of consistency might also be put to a different file... all in all, factoring out compiler-specific stuff to separate files and keeping
FindComputeCpp.cmaketo the bare minimum of detecting the library might be the best way to go. Also, checks about the executing runtime mentioned in #155 might also be put to a file of its own.All of this might be the topic of another PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I'd prefer if we move it into its own file for now, provided it's not too difficult. Let me know if it looks like it will actually be too onerous.
You're right about the gcc/clang check. Revisiting it, I'm tempted to remove it, because who uses 4.8? 😝 More seriously, if you use old compilers like that, you will get compile issues. Though maybe we should move it to this new file while we still (ostensibly) support Ubuntu 14.04?
Decision time: if you feel like moving it too, please feel free, though I won't mark it as a requirement of this PR by any means. Thanks again!