[wwwdocs] Update C++ conformance status

[wwwdocs] Update C++ conformance status

[Jonathan Wakely]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 588 bytes --]

People are being scared off by the experimental status on
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html

e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-10/msg00025.html

This makes it clear C++11 in 5.1 is no longer experimental.

We also have a "Standard Conformance" section for G++ in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ which says "Two milestones in standard
conformance are GCC 3.0 (including a major overhaul of the standard
library) and the 3.4.0 version (with its new C++ parser)."  I've
added some more recent milestones, although maybe std::lib conformance
doesn't need to be mentioned in this context?


[-- Attachment #2: patch.txt --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1958 bytes --]

Index: htdocs/projects/cxx0x.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/projects/cxx0x.html,v
retrieving revision 1.67
diff -u -r1.67 cxx0x.html
--- htdocs/projects/cxx0x.html	26 Jan 2015 11:12:43 -0000	1.67
+++ htdocs/projects/cxx0x.html	6 Oct 2015 10:58:01 -0000
@@ -28,10 +28,10 @@
       line.  GCC 4.7 and later support <code>-std=c++11</code> and
       <code>-std=gnu++11</code> as well.</p>
 
-  <p><strong>Important</strong>: GCC's support for C++11 is still
+  <p><strong>Important</strong>: Before GCC 5.1 support for C++11 was
   <strong>experimental</strong>.  Some features were implemented based on
-  early proposals, and no attempt will be made to maintain backward
-  compatibility when they are updated to match the final C++11
+  early proposals, and no attempt was made to maintain backward
+  compatibility when they were updated to match the final C++11
   standard.</p>
 
 <h2>C++11 Language Features</h2>
Index: htdocs/bugs/index.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/bugs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.116
diff -u -r1.116 index.html
--- htdocs/bugs/index.html	5 Jul 2014 21:52:32 -0000	1.116
+++ htdocs/bugs/index.html	6 Oct 2015 10:58:01 -0000
@@ -696,9 +700,12 @@
 However, some non-conforming constructs are allowed when the command-line
 option <code>-fpermissive</code> is used.</p>
 
-<p>Two milestones in standard conformance are GCC 3.0 (including a major
-overhaul of the standard library) and the 3.4.0 version (with its new C++
-parser).</p>
+<p>Significant milestones in standard conformance are
+GCC 3.0 (including a major overhaul of the standard library),
+the 3.4.0 version (with its new C++ parser),
+4.8.1 (complete C++11 language support),
+5.1 (complete C++14 language support),
+and 5.1 (complete C++11 and C++14 standard library support).</p>
 
 <h4>New in GCC 3.0</h4>
 

Re: [wwwdocs] Update C++ conformance status

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> People are being scared off by the experimental status on
> https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
> 
> e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-10/msg00025.html
> 
> This makes it clear C++11 in 5.1 is no longer experimental.

Nice!

> We also have a "Standard Conformance" section for G++ in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ which says "Two milestones in standard
> conformance are GCC 3.0 (including a major overhaul of the standard
> library) and the 3.4.0 version (with its new C++ parser)."  I've
> added some more recent milestones, although maybe std::lib conformance
> doesn't need to be mentioned in this context?

How about removing those references to GCC 3.x in bugs/index.html?

That page is supposed to provide instructions on bugs and bug reporting,
and I don't think we've got all that many users still interesting in those
versions, do we?  (And it makes this documentation more concise.)

If you agree, I'll be happy to make this change.  Just let me know.

Gerald

Re: [wwwdocs] Update C++ conformance status

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 06/10/15 12:39 -0400, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>People are being scared off by the experimental status on
>>https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
>>
>>e.g. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-10/msg00025.html
>>
>>This makes it clear C++11 in 5.1 is no longer experimental.
>
>Nice!
>
>>We also have a "Standard Conformance" section for G++ in
>>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ which says "Two milestones in standard
>>conformance are GCC 3.0 (including a major overhaul of the standard
>>library) and the 3.4.0 version (with its new C++ parser)."  I've
>>added some more recent milestones, although maybe std::lib conformance
>>doesn't need to be mentioned in this context?
>
>How about removing those references to GCC 3.x in bugs/index.html?
>
>That page is supposed to provide instructions on bugs and bug reporting,
>and I don't think we've got all that many users still interesting in those
>versions, do we?  (And it makes this documentation more concise.)
>
>If you agree, I'll be happy to make this change.  Just let me know.

I forgot to respond to this, and never committed the patch, sorry.

I've committed the changes to htdocs/projects/cxx0x.html now, but not
the htdocs/bugs/index.html change.

I agree that the 3.x info is not useful on that page. Maybe we should
just drop the whole "Common problems when upgrading the compiler"
section, because info on 3.x is outdated, nearly everybody understands
that C++ compilers conform to the standard these days (even MS got in
on that act eventually ;-) and the info about breaking the C++ ABI with
every major release is just wrong!

Re: [wwwdocs] Update C++ conformance status

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I forgot to respond to this, and never committed the patch, sorry.
> 
> I've committed the changes to htdocs/projects/cxx0x.html now, but 
> not the htdocs/bugs/index.html change.

I wasn't opposed to the bugs/index.html change, mind.  Only 
wondering about the 3.x info.

> I agree that the 3.x info is not useful on that page. Maybe we should
> just drop the whole "Common problems when upgrading the compiler"
> section, because info on 3.x is outdated, nearly everybody understands
> that C++ compilers conform to the standard these days (even MS got in
> on that act eventually ;-) and the info about breaking the C++ ABI with
> every major release is just wrong!

Version-specific changes like the ones described here, and how to 
cope with them, are usually covered in gcc-*/porting_to.html these
days, perhaps we should add pointers from bugs.html?

I agree with your thoughts and went ahead and made a first set of
changes along these lines (patch below).

Absolutely go ahead and trim (or remove) this further.

There is also a section about "C++ non-bugs" where I am not sure
the current contents still makes a lot of sense?

Gerald

Index: index.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/bugs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.117
diff -u -r1.117 index.html
--- index.html	8 Oct 2015 15:06:00 -0000	1.117
+++ index.html	21 Nov 2015 15:40:43 -0000
@@ -688,8 +688,7 @@
 <h4>Standard conformance</h4>
 
 <p>With each release, we try to make G++ conform closer to the <a href=
-"http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/">ISO C++ standard</a>.
-We have also implemented some of the core and library defect reports.</p>
+"http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/">ISO C++ standard</a>.</p>
 
 <p>Non-conforming legacy code that worked with older versions of GCC may be
 rejected by more recent compilers.  There is no command-line switch to ensure
@@ -698,58 +697,6 @@
 However, some non-conforming constructs are allowed when the command-line
 option <code>-fpermissive</code> is used.</p>
 
-<p>Two milestones in standard conformance are GCC 3.0 (including a major
-overhaul of the standard library) and the 3.4.0 version (with its new C++
-parser).</p>
-
-<h4>New in GCC 3.0</h4>
-
-<ul>
-
-<li>The standard library is much more conformant, and uses the
-<code>std::</code> namespace (which is now a real namespace, not an
-alias for <code>::</code>).</li>
-
-<li>The standard header files for the c library don't end with
-<code>.h</code>, but begin with <code>c</code> (i.e.
-<code>&lt;cstdlib&gt;</code> rather than <code>&lt;stdlib.h&gt;</code>).
-The <code>.h</code> names are still available, but are deprecated.</li>
-
-<li><code>&lt;strstream&gt;</code> is deprecated, use
-<code>&lt;sstream&gt;</code> instead.</li>
-
-<li><code>streambuf::seekoff</code> &amp;
-<code>streambuf::seekpos</code> are private, instead use
-<code>streambuf::pubseekoff</code> &amp;
-<code>streambuf::pubseekpos</code> respectively.</li>
-
-<li>If <code>std::operator &lt;&lt; (std::ostream &amp;, long long)</code>
-doesn't exist, you need to recompile libstdc++ with
-<code>--enable-long-long</code>.</li>
-
-</ul>
-
-<p>If you get lots of errors about things like <code>cout</code> not being
-found, you've most likely forgotten to tell the compiler to look in the
-<code>std::</code> namespace.  There are several ways to do this:</p>
-
-<ul>
-
-<li>Say <code>std::cout</code> at the call.  This is the most explicit
-way of saying what you mean.</li>
-
-<li>Say <code>using std::cout;</code> somewhere before the call.  You
-will need to do this for each function or type you wish to use from the
-standard library.</li>
-
-<li>Say <code>using namespace std;</code> somewhere before the call.
-This is the quick-but-dirty fix. This brings the <em>whole</em> of the
-<code>std::</code> namespace into scope.  <em>Never</em> do this in a
-header file, as every user of your header file will be affected by this
-decision.</li>
-
-</ul>
-
 <h4><a name="new34">New in GCC 3.4.0</a></h4>
 
 <p>The new parser brings a lot of improvements, especially concerning

Re: [wwwdocs] Update C++ conformance status

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 21/11/15 16:54 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> I forgot to respond to this, and never committed the patch, sorry.
>>
>> I've committed the changes to htdocs/projects/cxx0x.html now, but
>> not the htdocs/bugs/index.html change.
>
>I wasn't opposed to the bugs/index.html change, mind.  Only
>wondering about the 3.x info.
>
>> I agree that the 3.x info is not useful on that page. Maybe we should
>> just drop the whole "Common problems when upgrading the compiler"
>> section, because info on 3.x is outdated, nearly everybody understands
>> that C++ compilers conform to the standard these days (even MS got in
>> on that act eventually ;-) and the info about breaking the C++ ABI with
>> every major release is just wrong!
>
>Version-specific changes like the ones described here, and how to
>cope with them, are usually covered in gcc-*/porting_to.html these
>days, perhaps we should add pointers from bugs.html?
>
>I agree with your thoughts and went ahead and made a first set of
>changes along these lines (patch below).

LGTM.

>Absolutely go ahead and trim (or remove) this further.
>
>There is also a section about "C++ non-bugs" where I am not sure
>the current contents still makes a lot of sense?

Agreed, most of it isn't useful now (although some is).

I'll make another pass at it next week, thanks.