On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Daniel Gutson wrote: > I presented the issue in the WG21 std-proposal mailing list and the general > consensus was that I should ask WG14 first. The problem is that this issue > is C++ only so I'm kind of stuck. Anyway I already asked the convener about > this (David Keaton) and I'm waiting for his answer. I don't know another way > to raise the issue in WG14 since I'm not attending the Kona meeting. Are you a > member of the WG14 committee?
* Write a document explaining the issue, including proposed C standard text to define the semantics unambiguously and examples that would be added to the standard. * Obtain a document number from Dan Plakosh, insert it in the document and send it to him. See <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/13410> for detailed instructions on submitting documents to WG14. * It may be helpful to attend the following WG14 meeting where the document is discussed. * Repeat as needed taking account of feedback. If the initial submission is while there isn't an active C standard revision underway, you'll need to resubmit when the C standard is open for proposed changes for the next revision. > Considering that this is an opt-in feature controlled by a command line flag, > couldn't be just another GNU extension meanwhile? The issue is relevant in > C++. We'd still need to be confident we have good semantics that are worth supporting long-term. I don't have that confidence at present. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
