https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #24) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #22) > > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #20) > > > 1. Freestanding C++ in the current situation is very problematic. (You do > > > not have memcpy, you do not have std::move. You do not have std::forward. > > > You do not have std::addressof(). > > > > Freestanding libstdc++ provides std::move, std::forward and std::addressof. > > But that is actually not standard compliant. I think what you mean is it's not portable and strictly compliant code can't rely on it. It's is standard compliant for our freestanding mode to provide more than the minimum required. But portable code can't rely on deterministict exceptions either, yet you insist that it's essential and you can't live without it. It seems you're quite happy to rely on non-standard things when it suits you, but when it doesn't it's completely unusable. Because you're a timewaster. (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #25) > I mean you can try to fix it a little. However, it breaks ABI. So do deterministic exceptions. Please go away and write your own compiler or language.
