On 01/22/2013 02:29 PM, Alec Teal wrote: > > On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote: >>> On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>> On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >>>>> Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for >>>>> C++11 would be added in to GCC? >>>> Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html >>>> >>>> As usual, it'll be done when volunteer maintainers do it. >>> Nice, play the volunteer card, while not wrong that was a crap reply. >> Feel free to produce a better one. > About the time Clang does because GCC now has to compete." > How about that?
Well, I'm not sure it's actually any more informative. Saying "it'll be done when X is done" is IMO no better than saying "it'll be done when it's done"; YMMV. Pointing out that GCC is a co-operative project has to be done from time to time. Some people seem to think that there is a GCC master planner who hands out tasks to the hordes of willing drones. "Full support for C++11" is simply an exercise in box ticking; there is still some of C99 missing because no-one cares about it or uses it. > Clang is currently slightly ahead and GCC really needs to change if > it is to continue to be the best. Andrew.
