From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 4CBB1395543F; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:45:21 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4CBB1395543F From: "bspencer at blackberry dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/99058] Consider adding a note about std::optional ABI break to the C++17 status table Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:45:21 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: documentation X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: bspencer at blackberry dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:45:21 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99058 --- Comment #8 from Brad Spencer --- Everything you've said makes sense to me. The proposed documentation chang= es would help a lot. IMO, they are a good idea and would have helped (and will continue to help) me. I agree that the C++11/14/17 status page for libstdc++ and the compiler its= elf) are great places to document the version of GCC at which those features bec= ame stable. BTW, the compiler's own C++ status page seems to make some statements that, while perhaps not technically contradictory, might be misleading, or at lea= st confusing when taken together with your new doc changes. For example: https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx11 "GCC 4.8.1 was the first feature-complete implementation of the 2011 C++ standard" That's probably true, but the information that you wrote in the new diff is more important to a typical GCC user. Perhaps this should also state when C++11 became stable? The compiler's C++14 section doesn't list a version, and its C++17 section = says "C++17 features are available since GCC 5". (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > > +GCC 5.1 was the first release with non-experimental C++11 support, > > +so the API and ABI of C++11 components is only stable from that releas= e on. >=20 > Maybe this should say "of new C++11 components" (and similarly in the oth= er > sections) to make it clear that it only applies to features added by C++1= 1, > and not everything in the C++11 status table. Perhaps "so the API and ABI of components added in C++11"? Thanks again for explaining this in detail and for the changes.=