What differences, if any, between C++03 and C++11 can be detected at run-time?

Core Language

Accessing an enumerator using :::

template<int> struct int_ { };

template<typename T> bool isCpp0xImpl(int_<T::X>*) { return true; }
template<typename T> bool isCpp0xImpl(...) { return false; }

enum A { X };
bool isCpp0x() {
  return isCpp0xImpl<A>(0);
}

You can also abuse the new keywords

struct a { };
struct b { a a1, a2; };

struct c : a {
  static b constexpr (a());
};

bool isCpp0x() {
  return (sizeof c::a()) == sizeof(b);
}

Also, the fact that string literals do not anymore convert to char*

bool isCpp0xImpl(...) { return true; }
bool isCpp0xImpl(char*) { return false; }

bool isCpp0x() { return isCpp0xImpl(""); }

I don't know how likely you are to have this working on a real implementation though. One that exploits auto

struct x { x(int z = 0):z(z) { } int z; } y(1);

bool isCpp0x() {
  auto x(y);
  return (y.z == 1);
}

The following is based on the fact that operator int&& is a conversion function to int&& in C++0x, and a conversion to int followed by logical-and in C++03

struct Y { bool x1, x2; };

struct A {
  operator int();
  template<typename T> operator T();
  bool operator+();
} a;

Y operator+(bool, A);

bool isCpp0x() {
  return sizeof(&A::operator int&& +a) == sizeof(Y);
}

That test-case doesn't work for C++0x in GCC (looks like a bug) and doesn't work in C++03 mode for clang. A clang PR has been filed.

The modified treatment of injected class names of templates in C++11:

template<typename T>
bool g(long) { return false; }

template<template<typename> class>
bool g(int) { return true; }

template<typename T>
struct A {
  static bool doIt() {
    return g<A>(0);
  }
};

bool isCpp0x() {
  return A<void>::doIt();
}

---

A couple of "detect whether this is C++03 or C++0x" can be used to demonstrate breaking changes. The following is a tweaked testcase, which initially was used to demonstrate such a change, but now is used to test for C++0x or C++03.

struct X { };
struct Y { X x1, x2; };

struct A { static X B(int); };
typedef A B;

struct C : A {
  using ::B::B; // (inheriting constructor in c++0x)
  static Y B(...);
};

bool isCpp0x() { return (sizeof C::B(0)) == sizeof(Y); }

---

Standard Library

Detecting the lack of operator void* in C++0x' std::basic_ios

struct E { E(std::ostream &) { } };

template<typename T>
bool isCpp0xImpl(E, T) { return true; }
bool isCpp0xImpl(void*, int) { return false; }

bool isCpp0x() {
  return isCpp0xImpl(std::cout, 0);
}

I got an inspiration from What breaking changes are introduced in C++11?:

#define u8 "abc"

bool isCpp0x() {
   const std::string s = u8"def"; // Previously "abcdef", now "def"
   return s == "def";
}

This is based on the new string literals that take precedence over macro expansion.

How about a check using the new rules for >> closing templates:

#include <iostream>

const unsigned reallyIsCpp0x=1;
const unsigned isNotCpp0x=0;

template<unsigned>
struct isCpp0xImpl2
{
    typedef unsigned isNotCpp0x;
};

template<typename>
struct isCpp0xImpl
{
    static unsigned const reallyIsCpp0x=0x8000;
    static unsigned const isNotCpp0x=0;
};

bool isCpp0x() {
    unsigned const dummy=0x8000;
    return isCpp0xImpl<isCpp0xImpl2<dummy>>::reallyIsCpp0x > ::isNotCpp0x>::isNotCpp0x;
}

int main()
{
    std::cout<<isCpp0x()<<std::endl;
}

Alternatively a quick check for std::move:

struct any
{
    template<typename T>
    any(T const&)
    {}
};

int move(any)
{
    return 42;
}

bool is_int(int const&)
{
    return true;
}

bool is_int(any)
{
    return false;
}


bool isCpp0x() {
    std::vector<int> v;
    return !is_int(move(v));
}