public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "h2+bugs at fsfe dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/103904] [defect fix] Please backport P2325R3 to 10 and 11
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2022 15:55:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-103904-4-FwuT7kOXZU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-103904-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103904

--- Comment #4 from Hannes Hauswedell <h2+bugs at fsfe dot org> ---
Well... we also try to avoid breaking changes in the standard ^^

The thing is that code that relies on the old definition will break one way or
another (and independent of compiler flags). The longer GCC compilers are being
shipped with the old behaviour, the more code will be broken, or not?
With GCC10 being in common distributions like Debian stable, we are actively
contributing to the old definition being around...

Since views were introduced in GCC10 (and are not an old and established
feature), I think that the situation here is different from for other "breaking
changes" and that we should quickly try to homogenize the GCC behaviour for as
many people as possible. I think that was also the reasoning for "allowing" the
change in the IS.

[Note that I was not strongly in favour of this change, I am just scared of
writing code that might change behaviour unknowingly soon ]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-01-04 15:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-04 15:22 [Bug c++/103904] New: " h2+bugs at fsfe dot org
2022-01-04 15:45 ` [Bug libstdc++/103904] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-04 15:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-04 15:51 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-04 15:55 ` h2+bugs at fsfe dot org [this message]
2022-01-04 16:13 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-04 17:13 ` h2+bugs at fsfe dot org
2022-01-05  8:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-08 15:53 ` h2+bugs at fsfe dot org
2022-02-08 16:30 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-08 16:54 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-08 20:58 ` h2+bugs at fsfe dot org
2022-02-11 14:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-11 14:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-11 14:04 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-11 20:40 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-31 18:39 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-31 18:39 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-31 18:49 ` ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-31 19:50 ` h2+bugs at fsfe dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-103904-4-FwuT7kOXZU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).