* c++0x concepts in gcc call
@ 2008-01-22 2:04 Benjamin Kosnik
2008-01-22 11:37 ` NightStrike
2008-01-25 23:54 ` Doug Gregor
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Kosnik @ 2008-01-22 2:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Hello all!
Jason Merrill, Doug Gregor, and I invite all interested GCC hackers to
discuss implementation of the compiler and library parts of the
C++0x concepts proposals. This is to be a brainstorming session, where
we discuss the best way to complete the work, what can be taken from
existing branches, and how to smoothly transition between a
concept-enabled standard library and the current libstdc++.
This will take place:
Thursday, January 24, 2008
10:00 am EST / 15:00 UTC
In order to secure enough lines for the teleconference, I'm asking
interested participants to RSVP to me privately. I will send out
call-in details 24hrs in advance, so please respond by then.
I plan to write up the minutes of this discussion and post them on the
gcc list for archiving and post-call discussion.
best,
benjamin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call
2008-01-22 2:04 c++0x concepts in gcc call Benjamin Kosnik
@ 2008-01-22 11:37 ` NightStrike
2008-01-22 17:50 ` Benjamin Kosnik
2008-01-25 23:54 ` Doug Gregor
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: NightStrike @ 2008-01-22 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Kosnik; +Cc: gcc
On 1/21/08, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all!
>
> Jason Merrill, Doug Gregor, and I invite all interested GCC hackers to
> discuss implementation of the compiler and library parts of the
> C++0x concepts proposals. This is to be a brainstorming session, where
> we discuss the best way to complete the work, what can be taken from
> existing branches, and how to smoothly transition between a
> concept-enabled standard library and the current libstdc++.
>
> This will take place:
>
> Thursday, January 24, 2008
> 10:00 am EST / 15:00 UTC
>
> In order to secure enough lines for the teleconference, I'm asking
> interested participants to RSVP to me privately. I will send out
> call-in details 24hrs in advance, so please respond by then.
>
> I plan to write up the minutes of this discussion and post them on the
> gcc list for archiving and post-call discussion.
Will you allow people to call in as an observer, and not a participater?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call
2008-01-22 11:37 ` NightStrike
@ 2008-01-22 17:50 ` Benjamin Kosnik
2008-01-22 18:32 ` David Fang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Kosnik @ 2008-01-22 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: NightStrike; +Cc: gcc
> Will you allow people to call in as an observer, and not a
> participater?
Yes, as long as we have enough lines for full participants.
Please note that I'll summarize this call in email afterward, so that
mechanism will also be available to lurkers.
-benjamin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call
2008-01-22 17:50 ` Benjamin Kosnik
@ 2008-01-22 18:32 ` David Fang
2008-01-22 23:08 ` Benjamin Kosnik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: David Fang @ 2008-01-22 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Kosnik; +Cc: NightStrike, gcc
>> Will you allow people to call in as an observer, and not a
>> participater?
You beat me to the post! I'm primarily interested in listening in, or
reading a transcript at the very least.
> Yes, as long as we have enough lines for full participants.
>
> Please note that I'll summarize this call in email afterward, so that
> mechanism will also be available to lurkers.
Is there a chance of any sort of streaming audio broadcast instead of
having to dial in?
Fang
David Fang
Computer Systems Laboratory
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Cornell University
http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/
-- (2400 baud? Netscape 3.0?? lynx??? No problem!)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call
2008-01-22 2:04 c++0x concepts in gcc call Benjamin Kosnik
2008-01-22 11:37 ` NightStrike
@ 2008-01-25 23:54 ` Doug Gregor
2008-01-28 2:56 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Doug Gregor @ 2008-01-25 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Kosnik; +Cc: gcc
On Jan 21, 2008 8:08 PM, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> wrote:
> Jason Merrill, Doug Gregor, and I invite all interested GCC hackers to
> discuss implementation of the compiler and library parts of the
> C++0x concepts proposals. This is to be a brainstorming session, where
> we discuss the best way to complete the work, what can be taken from
> existing branches, and how to smoothly transition between a
> concept-enabled standard library and the current libstdc++.
Some notes from the discussion in this call:
Organization:
- We'll start a fresh branch in the FSF repository dedicated to concepts
(it's branches/cxx0x-concepts-branch). Initially, Doug and Jason
will be maintainers of this branch
- We want to minimize the distance between this branch and mainline:
* All non-concepts C++0x features will still go into mainline
(unless they depend on concepts)
* Type-checking of constrained templates depends on improved
type-checking of C++98 templates (particularly, checking of
non-dependent expressions), so we'll try to do all of this work in
mainline
* Doug will merge from mainline to branch regularly
- Will salvage what we can from ConceptGCC: concept-checking,
archetype generation, and parsing bits will be useful; type-checking
of constrained templates needs to be reworked significantly.
- We're not going to commit to any schedule, but it'll be a multi-year effort
- We're going to delay any decisions about library issues for
now. They won't matter until the front end supports enough of concepts
to permit their use in the library
C++ front end:
- Concepts representation:
* Concepts, concept maps will be RECORD_TYPEs to reuse as much of
that logic as is possible
* Archetypes will probably need their own, new tree nodes
- Same-type constraints and mapping to archetypes caused a lot of
trouble in ConceptGCC: canonical types could simplify this
- Constrained templates will create many new nodes in the internal
representation that don't need to be around after a constrained
template is type-checked; we might need to consider a stricter memory
management scheme
- Performance of the generated code was a problem with ConceptGCC,
which Doug blames on the inliner. We should consider a limited form of
inlining in the instantiation of constrained templates to avoid
swamping the inliner with the forwarding functions in constrained
templates.
For more information about the concepts branch, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html#concepts
For more information about ConceptGCC, see
http://www.generic-programming.org/software/ConceptGCC/
- Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call
2008-01-25 23:54 ` Doug Gregor
@ 2008-01-28 2:56 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2008-01-28 9:46 ` Doug Gregor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2008-01-28 2:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Doug Gregor; +Cc: Benjamin Kosnik, gcc
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Doug Gregor wrote:
> Organization:
> - We'll start a fresh branch in the FSF repository dedicated to concepts
> (it's branches/cxx0x-concepts-branch). Initially, Doug and Jason
> will be maintainers of this branch
Thanks for documenting this in svn.html! Just one quip: in the patch
you documented this new branch but removed the reference to the old
cxx0x-branch.
Shouldn't that be moved to the "Inactive Development Branches" instead?
Gerald
PS: Thinks for the excellent summary!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call
2008-01-28 2:56 ` Gerald Pfeifer
@ 2008-01-28 9:46 ` Doug Gregor
2008-01-29 0:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Doug Gregor @ 2008-01-28 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Benjamin Kosnik, gcc
On Jan 27, 2008 8:23 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Doug Gregor wrote:
> > Organization:
> > - We'll start a fresh branch in the FSF repository dedicated to concepts
> > (it's branches/cxx0x-concepts-branch). Initially, Doug and Jason
> > will be maintainers of this branch
>
> Thanks for documenting this in svn.html! Just one quip: in the patch
> you documented this new branch but removed the reference to the old
> cxx0x-branch.
>
> Shouldn't that be moved to the "Inactive Development Branches" instead?
I was planning to kill the cxx0x-branch outright, because it has
nothing that isn't available on mainline (except a not-nearly-complete
delegating constructors implementation), and will not be used. If this
would be better handled by moving the entry to "Inactive Development
Branches", I'll certainly do that. But there isn't really anything of
value in the cxx0x-branch to keep around.
- Doug
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call
2008-01-28 9:46 ` Doug Gregor
@ 2008-01-29 0:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2008-01-30 2:37 ` Doug Gregor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2008-01-29 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Doug Gregor; +Cc: Benjamin Kosnik, gcc
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Doug Gregor wrote:
> I was planning to kill the cxx0x-branch outright, because it has
> nothing that isn't available on mainline (except a not-nearly-complete
> delegating constructors implementation), and will not be used. If this
> would be better handled by moving the entry to "Inactive Development
> Branches", I'll certainly do that.
Yes, for historical reasons it would be nice to have that branch
documented there, with a note that/when it was merged into mainline
as for some of the other examples there.
Gerald
PS: Nice patch of yours that fixes seven PRs at once. :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call
2008-01-29 0:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer
@ 2008-01-30 2:37 ` Doug Gregor
2008-02-03 21:59 ` Gerald Pfeifer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Doug Gregor @ 2008-01-30 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Benjamin Kosnik, gcc
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Doug Gregor wrote:
> > I was planning to kill the cxx0x-branch outright, because it has
> > nothing that isn't available on mainline (except a not-nearly-complete
> > delegating constructors implementation), and will not be used. If this
> > would be better handled by moving the entry to "Inactive Development
> > Branches", I'll certainly do that.
>
> Yes, for historical reasons it would be nice to have that branch
> documented there, with a note that/when it was merged into mainline
> as for some of the other examples there.
Okay, done.
> Gerald
>
> PS: Nice patch of yours that fixes seven PRs at once. :-)
Now it's nine PRs :)
- Doug
Index: svn.html
N===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/svn.html,v
retrieving revision 1.73
diff -u -r1.73 svn.html
--- svn.html 28 Jan 2008 15:19:04 -0000 1.73
+++ svn.html 29 Jan 2008 17:37:47 -0000
@@ -779,7 +779,12 @@
zadeck@naturalbridge.com</a>>
</dd>
-
+ <dt>cxx0x-branch</dt>
+ <dd>This branch was for developed of C++0x features, and all
+ features developed on this branch have been merged to
+ mainline. Future C++0x features will be developed against mainline
+ or, in the case of concepts, on
+ the <a href="projects/cxx0x.html#concepts">cxx0x-concepts-branch</a>.</dd>
</dl>
</body>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: c++0x concepts in gcc call
2008-01-30 2:37 ` Doug Gregor
@ 2008-02-03 21:59 ` Gerald Pfeifer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2008-02-03 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Doug Gregor; +Cc: Benjamin Kosnik, gcc
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Doug Gregor wrote:
> Okay, done.
Thanks! I added the minor patch below on top.
Gerald
Index: svn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/svn.html,v
retrieving revision 1.75
diff -u -3 -p -r1.75 svn.html
--- svn.html 3 Feb 2008 20:40:27 -0000 1.75
+++ svn.html 3 Feb 2008 21:58:16 -0000
@@ -778,7 +778,7 @@ be prefixed with the initials of the dis
</dd>
<dt>cxx0x-branch</dt>
- <dd>This branch was for developed of C++0x features, and all
+ <dd>This branch was for the development of C++0x features, and all
features developed on this branch have been merged to
mainline. Future C++0x features will be developed against mainline
or, in the case of concepts, on
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-02-03 21:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-01-22 2:04 c++0x concepts in gcc call Benjamin Kosnik
2008-01-22 11:37 ` NightStrike
2008-01-22 17:50 ` Benjamin Kosnik
2008-01-22 18:32 ` David Fang
2008-01-22 23:08 ` Benjamin Kosnik
2008-01-25 23:54 ` Doug Gregor
2008-01-28 2:56 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2008-01-28 9:46 ` Doug Gregor
2008-01-29 0:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2008-01-30 2:37 ` Doug Gregor
2008-02-03 21:59 ` Gerald Pfeifer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).