My compiler expands it to 199711L. What does that mean? I read that __cplusplus > 199711L signifies C++11. What are the possible expansions of this macro and what does it signify?
相关问题
- Sorting 3 numbers without branching [closed]
- How to compile C++ code in GDB?
- Why does const allow implicit conversion of refere
- thread_local variables initialization
- What uses more memory in c++? An 2 ints or 2 funct
相关文章
- Class layout in C++: Why are members sometimes ord
- How to mock methods return object with deleted cop
- Which is the best way to multiply a large and spar
- C++ default constructor does not initialize pointe
- Selecting only the first few characters in a strin
- What exactly do pointers store? (C++)
- Converting glm::lookat matrix to quaternion and ba
- What is the correct way to declare and use a FILE
The 199711L stands for Year=1997, Month = 11 (i.e., November of 1997) -- the date when the committee approved the standard that the rest of the ISO approved in early 1998.
For the 2003 standard, there were few enough changes that the committee (apparently) decided to leave that value unchanged.
For the 2011 standard, it's required to be defined as 201103L, (again, year=2011, month = 03) again meaning that the committee approved the standard as finalized in March of 2011.
For the 2014 standard, it's required to be defined as 201402L, interpreted the same way as above (February 2014).
For the 2017 standard, it's required to be defined as 201703L (March 2017).
Before the original standard was approved, quite a few compilers normally defined it to
0
(or just an empty definition like#define __cplusplus
) to signify "not-conforming". When asked for their strictest conformance, many defined it to1
.I almost forgot to mention, but one more tidbit about ancient compilers: a few of the earliest versions of cfront (and probably a few others copying it) defined
c_plusplus
instead of__cplusplus
. I don't recall it's being defined to any meaningful value though.That means it is compatible with the 1997 C++ standard (actually known as C++ '98 as they took too long to ratify it..
I think preprocessor defines for the various versions should go into SD-6:
Looking into the 2020s we might have three more standards. I don't doubt that many implementors will have code supporting standards from 1997 onwards.
I for one would like a mnemonic define so I won't have to keep coming back to this post.