From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C1EB33858CD1; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:48:07 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C1EB33858CD1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1691768887; bh=uybD3xB5+8zGVeLJoXy1ZJqFlhgDmn4Q/HjccUgYagY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=OS80QkggYvuTkIgoGSrWNna5E6cqYUkMuqke2vwBErAniioGjTnKp20HEWj2k+LQ1 Of5h9Fopn71I9NlGy3LfD5gFF6+5gys3UiPI/L2bqpuWDLsy83DInbStzg1Hn+KHzP 8IROpcIv7WINZs4q1gHXYoR90UkR0f8U2LaNiAhU= From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/107954] Support -std=c23/gnu23 as aliases of -std=c2x/gnu2x Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:48:06 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, documentation, internal-improvement X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: joseph at codesourcery dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107954 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- The straw poll at the June meeting said to keep calling it C23 (votes=20 4/12/2 for/against/abstain on the question of changing the informal name=20 to C24). Of course the actual standard will be ISO/IEC 9899:2024 (but=20 __STDC_VERSION__ will remain as 202311L, consistent with the informal name= =20 rather than the publication date, in the absence of a technical DIS=20 comment requesting a change of version number being accepted, and=20 accepting any technical DIS comments would delay the standard by requiring= =20 an FDIS).=