On 30 December 2014 at 15:29, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: > On 12/30/2014 07:50 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: >> >> On 29-12-2014 16:34, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: >>> >>> The note about C++14 conformance is great as it stands modulo link >>> errors. >> >> >> Why is it great to not mention the experimental qualifier?
The point of the announcement is not to repeat all the information that is already provided elsewhere (specifically on the page the announcement links to), and since the experimental status didn't change there's nothing to announce w.r.t that status. I think you're just being picky - does it really matter? >> Do all files / libraries have to be compiled with the same -std option? No. That has never been necessary. >> If so, this option causes ABI issues by itself. >> >> Olaf >> >> > I should have replaced 'conformance' with 'feature completeness' in my > sentences. > The words in the message indicate 'features'. The word experimental appears > in bold. > > My understanding is that the C++11 ABI changes to string, list, > ios_base::failure (are there others?) that have been queued for a while have > been put into gcc5. This is the big release. There was a message > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01669.html (and subsequent) on > this. > Check https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00268.html for > std::list. > Check https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg01750.html for > std::ios_base::failure. > > I'm quite sure that once the ABI issues have been stabilized appropriate > formal announcements and documentation will appear on this subject. Exactly. It would be premature to announce them while I'm still fixing the fall-out. I still don't understand what a C++14 announcement has to do with the status of C++11. The entire thread seems to boil down to "I'm not happy with an announcement of X, why doesn't it also make an announcement of Y?" so I'm going to stop wasting my time in this thread.
