From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3770 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2004 20:04:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3749 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2004 20:04:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.10) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Sep 2004 20:04:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 27337 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2004 20:04:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.105?) (mitchell@127.0.0.1) by mail.codesourcery.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2004 20:04:54 -0000 Message-ID: <414F37E0.3020509@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:44:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org CC: Matt Austern , Nathan Sidwell , Jason Merrill Subject: DR handling for C++ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01186.txt.bz2 I've been asked to provide my input on the handling of DRs in the C++ front end. Unfortunately, I don't have the messages from the original thread, so I'm off starting a new thread. I certainly agree with Matt and Nathan that there's no point in supporting C++98 separately from C++03. I also agree that new features in future revisions of C++ should be supported only under a flag. I think that fixes for existing features, however, should be incorporated into the C++03 mode, even if they don't show up in C++03 itself. (A "defect repot", after all, is supposed to refer to a bug in the standard.) I think the threshold for incorporating such fixes should be that the fixes are in WP status, in general, although I'd consider other fixes if it seems clear that the commitee is going to accept the change and the change seems important. In the particular case of PR 15049, I think we should go with Matt's approach. I'm not sure that, in general, I'd want to leave in support for what the commitee basically considers to be bugs in C++03, but in this case it looks very easy to do that, so we should probably go ahead. I think that part of the confusion here comes from the -pedwarn/-fpermissive situation. I think -fpermissive should just be removed. I think that many of our pedwarns should become errors, many should become warnings, -pedantic-errors should be off by default. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC (916) 791-8304 mark@codesourcery.com