From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D50A3887006 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:02:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1D50A3887006 Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id y17so9355944iow.9 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 07:02:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nWiaRxoWWaE20gG/BY3OFQ0Bq+mtMxFSrhl8SP7dnF0=; b=qhMr3apUCbczUxKpIDsOaM9POAunQKwo7ievmpia7iPWPdIoqahQdQe+deFLRFff5b ZcVOFmUbYjYQfwOCpxfZ8uOXeqqChQM9bKyqet9vtVYDNINohSC0F+mkEjA5rfLIJt57 nep+srFzPjLrzLjoTtwjhZ9WEMffcz/tNn9H9rfABfokA8cDUHXl78Ej0zjOQ7DdRPtz iWUgxftu/D5WmzxBQmz7+iVAQ/Qd83vIabnAw+tbH0pYM4efsQWID8LG208StsLWNLpQ CP7VKpmyI1sR8Pl6WCOaSHlCXirabhO8/moeeXw8+L2WWfF/vQhxwCr3rMAL642RBXoP 9PQg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZ8E5ySgL7CKzwPLvR7UiuyUvHfG4zhVFIt2ZgBClDu5QkJy63g Pw0sONLQUkrq8tCA9qkvDRGoD4HtlP9UZA4gYsFyQTZg X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLrfWUYS/NyGnuQQHnIMLltdy7fKLP0BbdcmJNzN3fCtOZR7Doh4AQkUAPFfzKAOR8fOuCBI+F3yaya37s99nw= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9685:: with SMTP id m5mr13476912ion.36.1586786538492; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 07:02:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 15:02:06 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: The problem(difference) in the gnu website about C++11 support in a specific version of GCC To: Qiye Tan Cc: gcc-help Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-help mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:02:20 -0000 On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 06:22, Qiye Tan via Gcc-help wrote: > > Dear GCC Helper: > > > > I have found that in website: > https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx11, the Table Concurrency > shows that GCC 4.3 support the proposal N2660, however, when I went to GC= C > 4.3 c++0x status website (https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/cxx0x_status.html) > for detail information, I found that it shows that GCC 4.3 doesn=E2=80=99= t support > proposal N2660. It's likely the gcc-4.3 docs were not updated at the time, and so are incor= rect. > What=E2=80=99s more, I don=E2=80=99t know why my gcc doesn=E2=80=99t have= the > predefine MACRO =E2=80=9C__cpp_threadsafe_static_init=E2=80=9D, it even d= oesn=E2=80=99t have the > MACRO =E2=80=9C__cpp_rtti=E2=80=9D. GCC 4.3.6 was released in 2011. The initial proposal for the idea of standardized macros was published in 2= 012: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3435.htm The first "__cpp_xxx" macros were proposed in 2013: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3694.htm But the __cpp_rtti macro wasn't proposed until much later: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4200.htm And the __cpp_threadsafe_static_init macro even later: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0096r5.html It's completely unsurprising that a compiler released in 2011 doesn't implement a feature invented several years later. > So, can you tell me that whether threadsafe_static_init > is supported in GCC 4.3? Thank you so much! The -fno-threadsafe-statics option is documented in the GCC 4.3 manual, so yes, it's supported.