On 12/27/2014 08:03 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 December 2014 at 00:08, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On 26-12-2014 1:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25 December 2014 at 16:28, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/ links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ (GCC 5 C++14
language feature-complete [2014-12-23]) which doesn't exist.
It should probably be https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/status.html
(As already said, I meant https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/changes.html there)
I don't think that's right, it should link to a page like
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/
Ah, I don't think that will exist until it's released.
Important: Because the final ISO C++14 standard was only recently
published, GCC's support is experimental.
Is C++11 support no longer experimental?
That hasn't changed yet, but it should be announced on
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/status.html when it does.
Okay, but shouldn't that be reflected in the announcement?
I doesn't mention the experimental status at all.
Which announcement, the C++14 one?
Why should that say anything about the status of C++11?
The note about C++14 conformance is great as it stands modulo link errors.
The note on C++14 conformance referred to is not the place for this but:
is our C++11 support really less tested and more experimental than our
C++03 support at this point? One thing I can think of might be gcc
bootstrap.
I could be wrong but I sense the subtext of the OP is perhaps a request
for a roadmap and guidance for which C++ language version is best supported.
We can't offer a roadmap on default language until we have a big
conversation and exploration of technical issues.
I imagine we should at least wait until C++11 ABI churn has died down.
We need to build gcc with C++11/C++14 turned on to work out build kinks
(I admit I haven't pushed this as hard as I had hoped).
Then a big talk of gcc version - default C++ version.
Ed
