From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15826 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2004 21:26:15 -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 15805 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2004 21:26:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.10) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Sep 2004 21:26:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 19235 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2004 21:26:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.105?) (mitchell@127.0.0.1) by mail.codesourcery.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2004 21:26:11 -0000 Message-ID: <414F4AEC.3080709@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:59:00 -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: Matt Austern CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Nathan Sidwell , Jason Merrill Subject: Re: DR handling for C++ References: <414F37E0.3020509@codesourcery.com> <461F70B0-0B49-11D9-ADB7-000A95AA5E5E@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <461F70B0-0B49-11D9-ADB7-000A95AA5E5E@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01200.txt.bz2 Matt Austern wrote: > On Sep 20, 2004, at 1:04 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > >> 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. > > > I'd be unhappy about taking all "WP" changes unconditionally, either > CWG or LWG. ... > My concern is that if we implement all issues in "WP" status we'll be > back in the bad place we were in the late 90s: tracking an unstable > document, and claiming to implement a "standard" that hasn't actually > been standardized. > > There are some committee issues that ought to be implemented, because > there are some cases where the standard really is unimplementable, > vague, meaningless, or contradictory. But at this point there is only > only official C++ standard, and where that standard is clear and > consistent our users have a right to expect that we'll follow it. Aren't we basically in agreement? I think we both agree that we needn't bother with C++98 separate from C++03. I said above that new features should require a flag, which I think is what you want too. If there's a disagreement, it's probably around exactly which non-feature modifications we should incorporate by default. (For example, should the enum thing you mentioned be incorporated by default in our C++03 mode?) I think I'd take those on a case-by-case basis, incorporating those that looked like they were really fixing silly things in C++03, and deferring those that are not. In this particular case, I'd think we should accept it with a warning in C++03 mode. (I think the intent of C++03 was to make that case invalid, but the standard failed to actually say that. ) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC (916) 791-8304 mark@codesourcery.com