--- Comment #16 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 15:30
---
This functionality is part of the experimental C++0x mode, and is under control
of the -std=gnu++0x flag in the mainline (4.3.0) compiler.
--
dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #15 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-03-12 09:26 ---
Actually in the latest mailing there are two new papers, N2151 and N2152.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20599
--- Comment #14 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2007-03-12 06:22
---
For reference, is this the latest draft of the variadic template proposal?
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2080.pdf
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20599
--- Comment #13 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-10 02:02
---
Subject: Bug 20599
Author: dgregor
Date: Sat Mar 10 02:01:49 2007
New Revision: 122789
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122789
Log:
2007-03-09 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #12 from dgregor at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-10 01:59
---
Subject: Bug 20599
Author: dgregor
Date: Sat Mar 10 01:58:58 2007
New Revision: 122788
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122788
Log:
2007-03-09 Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #11 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-09-25 13:00 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > We should have -std=c++2003 and -std=c++0x. However, care must be
> > exercise about what is included in both options.
> >
> > -- Gaby
>
> So what will "-ansi -pedantic-errors" use? c++98,
--- Comment #10 from fang at csl dot cornell dot edu 2006-09-25 03:46
---
Subject: Re: variadic template support
> | For the record, personally and for what is worth my personal opinion
> | in the compiler area, I have nothing against adding to the compiler
> | -std=c++0x
>
> We shoul
--- Comment #9 from gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2006-09-25 03:38
---
Subject: Re: variadic template support
"pcarlini at suse dot de" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| For the record, personally and for what is worth my personal opinion
| in the compiler area, I have nothing agai
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-15 08:39 ---
I second that. In addition to that I would welcome a warning for current C++
if I use keywords that are reserved in C++0x.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20599
--- Comment #7 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 06:19 ---
For the record, I'm strongly in favor of variadic templates. Key parts of TR1
(tuple, functional) necessitate some kind of compiler support in order to have
full implementations: the current limits on tuple size are an
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-09-12 20:30 ---
For the record, personally and for what is worth my personal opinion in the
compiler area, I have nothing against adding to the compiler -std=c++0x and
start adding things, in general. I'm also finding a little "adventurous
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 18:29 ---
Suspending untill this is accepted.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from doug dot gregor at gmail dot com 2006-09-12 18:27
---
It's a chicken-and-egg problem. Nobody on the committee wants to standardize
anything that isn't "existing practice," but we only want to accept patches for
features that have been written into the current working
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-09-12 15:50 ---
Then the real issue maybe is the following: what are we going to do vs C++0x
features? Shall we set-up the compiler switch for it (-std=c++0x?) and start
adding things? Or people believe it's too early? Maybe a good comprom
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-12 15:36 ---
See:
http://www.osl.iu.edu/~dgregor/cpp/variadic-templates.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20599
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-23
15:13 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
16 matches
Mail list logo
