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
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?
Do all files / libraries have to be compiled with the same -std o
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?
Do all files / libraries have to be compiled with the same -std option?
If so, this option causes ABI issues by its
On 29-12-2014 18:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29 December 2014 at 15:34, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
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
On 29 December 2014 at 15:34, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> 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.
The main differ
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-c
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]) whi
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
On 27 December 2014 at 19:17, Jonathan Adamczewski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 4:52 PM, 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-complet
On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 4:52 PM, 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:
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
>> Important: Because the final ISO C++
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.
> Important: Because the final ISO C++14 standard was only recently
published, GCC's support is experimental.
Is C++11 support no longer experimental? Is C+
12 matches
Mail list logo
