[wwwdocs] Introducing C++ DR status table

[wwwdocs] Introducing C++ DR status table

[Marek Polacek]

For a long time I wished we had a table documenting the status of C++ defect
reports in the C++ FE, like clang has [1].  I finally got around to tackling
this bad boy and created <https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-dr-status.html>
and will now commit the attached patch.

The table was created by an awk script which processed
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_toc.html> and then I made
a lot of manual changes.  I also searched through 3000 C++ PRs and linked
various PRs and changed the status of a few DRs.  For this table to be
useful it needs to be much more complete, but this is a good start.

I'm not going to force anyone's hand to go over that list and update random DRs
(though *any* help would be greatly appreciated; even a list of DR #s that you
know are fixed would be useful), but please, when you fix a DR, reflect that
in the table (or let me know and I'll update it for ya).  I want to see more
green!

[1] https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_dr_status.html

Index: cxx-status.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/projects/cxx-status.html,v
retrieving revision 1.86
diff -u -r1.86 cxx-status.html
--- cxx-status.html	29 May 2019 08:14:45 -0000	1.86
+++ cxx-status.html	8 Jul 2019 16:41:47 -0000
@@ -21,6 +21,10 @@
     <li><a href="#tses">Technical Specifications</a></li>
   </ul>

+  <p>For information about the status of C++ defect reports, please see
+  <a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-dr-status.html">this page</a>.
+  </p>
+
   <p>For information about the status of the library implementation, please see
   <a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/status.html">this page</a>.
   </p>

--
Marek Polacek • Red Hat, Inc. • 300 A St, Boston, MA

Re: [wwwdocs] Introducing C++ DR status table

[Nathan Sidwell]

On 7/8/19 1:43 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> For a long time I wished we had a table documenting the status of C++ defect
> reports in the C++ FE, like clang has [1].  I finally got around to tackling
> this bad boy and created <https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-dr-status.html>
> and will now commit the attached patch.
> 
> The table was created by an awk script which processed
> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_toc.html> and then I made
> a lot of manual changes.  I also searched through 3000 C++ PRs and linked
> various PRs and changed the status of a few DRs.  For this table to be
> useful it needs to be much more complete, but this is a good start.
> 
> I'm not going to force anyone's hand to go over that list and update random DRs
> (though *any* help would be greatly appreciated; even a list of DR #s that you
> know are fixed would be useful), but please, when you fix a DR, reflect that
> in the table (or let me know and I'll update it for ya).  I want to see more
> green!

thanks for putting this together.  Is it worth including the NAD 
entries? Or perhaps not marking them as unknown status?

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell

Re: [wwwdocs] Introducing C++ DR status table

[Marek Polacek]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 02:20:24PM -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 7/8/19 1:43 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > For a long time I wished we had a table documenting the status of C++ defect
> > reports in the C++ FE, like clang has [1].  I finally got around to tackling
> > this bad boy and created <https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-dr-status.html>
> > and will now commit the attached patch.
> > 
> > The table was created by an awk script which processed
> > <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_toc.html> and then I made
> > a lot of manual changes.  I also searched through 3000 C++ PRs and linked
> > various PRs and changed the status of a few DRs.  For this table to be
> > useful it needs to be much more complete, but this is a good start.
> > 
> > I'm not going to force anyone's hand to go over that list and update random DRs
> > (though *any* help would be greatly appreciated; even a list of DR #s that you
> > know are fixed would be useful), but please, when you fix a DR, reflect that
> > in the table (or let me know and I'll update it for ya).  I want to see more
> > green!
> 
> thanks for putting this together.  Is it worth including the NAD entries? Or
> perhaps not marking them as unknown status?

Good point.  I've been meaning to do a pass over NADs and change their status
to N/A or something.  But I guess it'd be prudent to still check whether the
compiler does the right thing, which is often non-trivial.  I think we should
include them in the list so that there aren't any numbers missing.

Thanks for taking a look!

Marek