On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > 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.
OK, thanks for all the information. > >> 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 -- Daniel F. Gutson Chief Engineering Officer, SPD San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5 Córdoba, Argentina Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211 Skype: dgutson LinkedIn: http://ar.linkedin.com/in/danielgutson
