I've checked this in with some tweaks.
Jason
On 10/30/2011 03:25 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
-Important: because the ISO C++0x draft is still evolving,
- GCC's support for C++0x isexperimental. No attempt will be
- made to maintain backward compatibility with implementations of
- C++0x features that do not reflect the final C++0x standard
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Since C++11 is now the official name, wouldn't it be better to use the
> new name instead of the old one after the initial historical
> introduction? :) Like...
Yes. Originally I wanted to avoid that to get my patch in faster,
but since you ask. Here is
On 30 October 2011 13:14, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Joe Buck wrote:
>> No, the page now claims something that is incorrect. The C++0x draft
>> is no longer evolving. C++11 is an official standard now.
>
> How about the patch below? It tries to reflect the release of
> C++11.
On Sun, 2011-10-30 at 14:14 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> + C++0x was the working name of a new ISO C++ standard, which then
> + was released in 2011 as C++11 and introduces a host of new features
> + into the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to
>implement new C++0x fe
On 30 October 2011 13:14, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> @@ -9,11 +9,11 @@
>
>
>
> - C++0x Support in GCC
> + C++0x/C++11 Support in GCC
>
> - C++0x is the working name of the next ISO C++ standard, due by
> - the end of this decade, which introduces a host of new features into
> - the standard C
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Joe Buck wrote:
> No, the page now claims something that is incorrect. The C++0x draft
> is no longer evolving. C++11 is an official standard now.
How about the patch below? It tries to reflect the release of
C++11. There definitely will be more adjustments, but this is
a
On 21 September 2011 19:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> libstdc++ manual still refers to C++ 200x!
... which I already have a patch for, before someone reports it to Bugzilla :)
On 21 September 2011 19:25, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:07:07AM -0700, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 21 September 2011 19:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> > On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is no
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:07:07AM -0700, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21 September 2011 19:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote:
> >>
> >> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing
> >> "experimental" about it any more.
> >
On 21 September 2011 19:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>>
>> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing
>> "experimental" about it any more.
>
> I thought the "experimental" refers to GCC's support, not the standard's
>
On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>
> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing
> "experimental" about it any more.
I thought the "experimental" refers to GCC's support, not the standard's status.
GCC's support didn't magically change when the stand
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Nathan Ridge wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing
> "experimental" about it any more.
>
> Would it be possible to remove the warning about GCC's C++11 support
> being experimental from http://gcc.gnu.org
Hello,
Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing
"experimental" about it any more.
Would it be possible to remove the warning about GCC's C++11 support
being experimental from http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, and
to modify the __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ m
14 matches
Mail list logo
