* C++11 no longer experimental @ 2011-09-21 17:51 Nathan Ridge 2011-09-21 17:58 ` James Dennett 2011-09-21 18:01 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Nathan Ridge @ 2011-09-21 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GCC Mailing List Hello, Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing "experimental" about it any more. Would it be possible to remove the warning about GCC's C++11 support being experimental from http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, and to modify the __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ macro to be just __GXX_CXX0X__ (or even better, __GXX_CXX11__)? Thanks, Nate ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-09-21 17:51 C++11 no longer experimental Nathan Ridge @ 2011-09-21 17:58 ` James Dennett 2011-09-21 18:01 ` Jonathan Wakely 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: James Dennett @ 2011-09-21 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Ridge; +Cc: GCC Mailing List On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing > "experimental" about it any more. > > Would it be possible to remove the warning about GCC's C++11 support > being experimental from http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, and > to modify the __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ macro to be just > __GXX_CXX0X__ (or even better, __GXX_CXX11__)? > > Thanks, > Nate "Experimental" isn't really the right word anymore, and when GCC has essentially full support of C++11 we'll want to update __cplusplus (I hope!). I don't know how worthwhile it is to introduce a third name for testing the level of C++11 support in the interim. -- James ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-09-21 17:51 C++11 no longer experimental Nathan Ridge 2011-09-21 17:58 ` James Dennett @ 2011-09-21 18:01 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-21 18:07 ` Jonathan Wakely 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-09-21 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Ridge; +Cc: GCC Mailing List On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote: > > Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing > "experimental" about it any more. I thought the "experimental" refers to GCC's support, not the standard's status. GCC's support didn't magically change when the standard was made official. (Arguably the support *is* good enough to not be labelled experimental, but that change should be made because GCC's support is good enough, not because C++11 is official.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-09-21 18:01 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-09-21 18:07 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-21 18:26 ` Joe Buck 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-09-21 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nathan Ridge; +Cc: GCC Mailing List On 21 September 2011 19:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote: >> >> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing >> "experimental" about it any more. > > I thought the "experimental" refers to GCC's support, not the standard's status. The page you linked to even makes that clear: "Important: because the ISO C++0x draft is still evolving, GCC's support for C++0x is *experimental*. No attempt will be made to maintain backward compatibility with implementations of C++0x features that do not reflect the final C++0x standard." i.e. the experimental implies GCC's implementation and supported feature set are not stable yet. And that's still true, not all features are implemented, and something might have to change incompatibly to support the full C++11 feature set. So I think it's inappropriate to remove the experimental label until we're ready to make some of guarantee of stability and that anything that works with G++ 4.7 will continue to work. I don't think we're at that stage yet, because there are "accepts-invalid" bugs in our current C++11 support, and they could be fixed first. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-09-21 18:07 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-09-21 18:26 ` Joe Buck 2011-09-21 18:34 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-30 14:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2011-09-21 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: Nathan Ridge, GCC Mailing List On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:07:07AM -0700, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 21 September 2011 19:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote: > >> > >> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing > >> Â "experimental" about it any more. > > > > I thought the "experimental" refers to GCC's support, not the standard's status. > > The page you linked to even makes that clear: > > "Important: because the ISO C++0x draft is still evolving, GCC's > support for C++0x is *experimental*. No attempt will be made to > maintain backward compatibility with implementations of C++0x features > that do not reflect the final C++0x standard." No, the page now claims something that is incorrect. The C++0x draft is no longer evolving. C++11 is an official standard now. It is still the case that the *GCC support for the standard* has to be considered experimental, which means that it's not yet possible to freeze the ABI and provide the same level of backward compatibility as is provided for C++98. Still, the page needs an update. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-09-21 18:26 ` Joe Buck @ 2011-09-21 18:34 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-21 19:52 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-30 14:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-09-21 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Buck; +Cc: Nathan Ridge, GCC Mailing List On 21 September 2011 19:25, Joe Buck wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:07:07AM -0700, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 21 September 2011 19:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> > On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote: >> >> >> >> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing >> >> "experimental" about it any more. >> > >> > I thought the "experimental" refers to GCC's support, not the standard's status. >> >> The page you linked to even makes that clear: >> >> "Important: because the ISO C++0x draft is still evolving, GCC's >> support for C++0x is *experimental*. No attempt will be made to >> maintain backward compatibility with implementations of C++0x features >> that do not reflect the final C++0x standard." > > No, the page now claims something that is incorrect. The C++0x draft is > no longer evolving. C++11 is an official standard now. Yes, but that wasn't my point. The "experimental" never referred to the status of C++0x/C++11, it referred to the support in GCC. The subject and original suggestion of this thread are based on the premise that because C++11 is official something about GCC (except documentation) has changed. > It is still the case that the *GCC support for the standard* has to be > considered experimental, which means that it's not yet possible to freeze > the ABI and provide the same level of backward compatibility as is > provided for C++98. Exactly. > Still, the page needs an update. Sure, *all* our pages referring to C++0x need an update, and the libstdc++ manual still refers to C++ 200x! But let's not change the macro and break all the code that does: #if defined(__GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__) || __cplusplus >= someval As James said, when it's no longer experimental the __cplusplus macro's value will change (possible now that we *finally* set it correctly for -std=c++98) and also the option to enable it should be -std=c++11 / -std=gnu++11 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-09-21 18:34 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-09-21 19:52 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-09-21 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Buck; +Cc: Nathan Ridge, GCC Mailing List On 21 September 2011 19:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > libstdc++ manual still refers to C++ 200x! ... which I already have a patch for, before someone reports it to Bugzilla :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-09-21 18:26 ` Joe Buck 2011-09-21 18:34 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-10-30 14:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2011-10-30 14:50 ` Jonathan Wakely ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2011-10-30 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Buck, Jonathan Wakely, Jason Merrill; +Cc: Nathan Ridge, gcc On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Joe Buck wrote: > No, the page now claims something that is incorrect. The C++0x draft > is no longer evolving. C++11 is an official standard now. How about the patch below? It tries to reflect the release of C++11. There definitely will be more adjustments, but this is a first step addressing the issue Joe raised (and a bit more). Okay? (I'll also be happy to make further changes.) Gerald Index: cxx0x.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/projects/cxx0x.html,v retrieving revision 1.50 diff -u -r1.50 cxx0x.html --- cxx0x.html 26 Oct 2011 19:48:57 -0000 1.50 +++ cxx0x.html 30 Oct 2011 13:11:47 -0000 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ <html> <head> - <title>C++0x Support in GCC</title> + <title>C++0x/C++11 Support in GCC</title> <style type="text/css"> /* <![CDATA[*/ tr.separator { background: #ffffcc} @@ -9,11 +9,11 @@ </head> <body> - <h1>C++0x Support in GCC</h1> + <h1>C++0x/C++11 Support in GCC</h1> - <p>C++0x is the working name of the next ISO C++ standard, due by - the end of this decade, which introduces a host of new features into - the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to + <p>C++0x was the working name of a new ISO C++ standard, which then + was released in 2011 as C++11 and introduces a host of new features + into the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to implement new C++0x features in GCC and to make it one of the first compilers to bring C++0x to C++ programmers.</p> @@ -27,10 +27,8 @@ add <code>-std=gnu++0x</code> to your <code>g++</code> command line.</p> - <p><b>Important</b>: because the ISO C++0x draft is still evolving, - GCC's support for C++0x is <b>experimental</b>. No attempt will be - made to maintain backward compatibility with implementations of - C++0x features that do not reflect the final C++0x standard.</p> + <p><strong>Important</strong>: GCC's support for C++11 is still + <strong>experimental</strong>.</p> <h2>C++0x Language Features</h2> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-10-30 14:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2011-10-30 14:50 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-30 18:27 ` Oleg Endo 2011-10-30 19:20 ` Jonathan Wakely 2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-10-30 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Joe Buck, Jason Merrill, Nathan Ridge, gcc On 30 October 2011 13:14, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > @@ -9,11 +9,11 @@ > </head> > > <body> > - <h1>C++0x Support in GCC</h1> > + <h1>C++0x/C++11 Support in GCC</h1> > > - <p>C++0x is the working name of the next ISO C++ standard, due by > - the end of this decade, which introduces a host of new features into > - the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to > + <p>C++0x was the working name of a new ISO C++ standard, which then > + was released in 2011 as C++11 and introduces a host of new features > + into the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to > implement new C++0x features in GCC and to make it one of the first > compilers to bring C++0x to C++ programmers.</p> Just a small point of style: I think "which was then released" reads a bit more naturally than "which then was released" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-10-30 14:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2011-10-30 14:50 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-10-30 18:27 ` Oleg Endo 2011-10-31 5:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2011-10-30 19:20 ` Jonathan Wakely 2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Oleg Endo @ 2011-10-30 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Joe Buck, Jonathan Wakely, Jason Merrill, Nathan Ridge, gcc On Sun, 2011-10-30 at 14:14 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > + <p>C++0x was the working name of a new ISO C++ standard, which then > + was released in 2011 as C++11 and introduces a host of new features > + into the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to > implement new C++0x features in GCC and to make it one of the first > compilers to bring C++0x to C++ programmers.</p> Since C++11 is now the official name, wouldn't it be better to use the new name instead of the old one after the initial historical introduction? :) Like... C++0x was the working name of a new ISO C++ standard, which was then released in 2011 as C++11 and introduces a host of new features into the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to implement new C++11 features in GCC and to make it one of the first compilers to bring C++11 to C++ programmers. Cheers, Oleg ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-10-30 18:27 ` Oleg Endo @ 2011-10-31 5:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2011-10-31 9:36 ` Jason Merrill 2011-11-01 3:56 ` Jason Merrill 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2011-10-31 5:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Oleg Endo, Jason Merrill; +Cc: Joe Buck, Jonathan Wakely, Nathan Ridge, gcc On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Oleg Endo wrote: > Since C++11 is now the official name, wouldn't it be better to use the > new name instead of the old one after the initial historical > introduction? :) Like... Yes. Originally I wanted to avoid that to get my patch in faster, but since you ask. Here is a more complete patch. Jason? Gerald Index: cxx0x.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/projects/cxx0x.html,v retrieving revision 1.50 diff -u -r1.50 cxx0x.html --- cxx0x.html 26 Oct 2011 19:48:57 -0000 1.50 +++ cxx0x.html 30 Oct 2011 19:24:05 -0000 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ <html> <head> - <title>C++0x Support in GCC</title> + <title>C++0x/C++11 Support in GCC</title> <style type="text/css"> /* <![CDATA[*/ tr.separator { background: #ffffcc} @@ -9,15 +9,15 @@ </head> <body> - <h1>C++0x Support in GCC</h1> + <h1>C++0x/C++11 Support in GCC</h1> - <p>C++0x is the working name of the next ISO C++ standard, due by - the end of this decade, which introduces a host of new features into - the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to - implement new C++0x features in GCC and to make it one of the first - compilers to bring C++0x to C++ programmers.</p> + <p>C++0x was the working name of a new ISO C++ standard, which was + then released in 2011 as C++11 and introduces a host of new features + into the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to + implement new C++11 features in GCC and to make it one of the first + compilers to bring C++11 to C++ programmers.</p> - <p>C++0x features are available as part of the "mainline" GCC + <p>C++11 features are available as part of the "mainline" GCC compiler in the trunk of <a href="../svn.html">GCC's Subversion repository</a> and in GCC 4.3 and later. To enable C++0x @@ -27,27 +27,26 @@ add <code>-std=gnu++0x</code> to your <code>g++</code> command line.</p> - <p><b>Important</b>: because the ISO C++0x draft is still evolving, - GCC's support for C++0x is <b>experimental</b>. No attempt will be - made to maintain backward compatibility with implementations of - C++0x features that do not reflect the final C++0x standard.</p> + <p><strong>Important</strong>: GCC's support for C++11 is still + <strong>experimental</strong>.</p> -<h2>C++0x Language Features</h2> +<h2>C++11 Language Features</h2> <p>The following table lists new language features that have been - accepted into the C++0x draft standard. The "Proposal" column + accepted into the C++11 standard. The "Proposal" column provides a link to the ISO C++ committee proposal that describes the feature, while the "Available in GCC?" column indicates the first version of GCC that contains an implementation of this feature (if it has been implemented). For the most complete and up-to-date - information about new language features in C++0x, please see + information about new language features in C++11, please see the <a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/">ISO C++ Committee Papers</a> and look for the most recent "State of C++ Evolution" paper by Alisdair Meridith. </p> <!-- 2009-04-07 based on n2869 post-san francisco --> - <p>For information about C++0x support in a specific version of GCC, please see:</p> + <p>For information about C++11 support in a specific version of GCC, + please see:</p> <ul> <li><a href="../gcc-4.3/cxx0x_status.html">GCC 4.3 C++0x Status</a></li> <li><a href="../gcc-4.4/cxx0x_status.html">GCC 4.4 C++0x Status</a></li> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-10-31 5:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2011-10-31 9:36 ` Jason Merrill 2011-11-01 3:56 ` Jason Merrill 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jason Merrill @ 2011-10-31 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Oleg Endo, Joe Buck, Jonathan Wakely, Nathan Ridge, gcc On 10/30/2011 03:25 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > -<p><b>Important</b>: because the ISO C++0x draft is still evolving, > - GCC's support for C++0x is<b>experimental</b>. No attempt will be > - made to maintain backward compatibility with implementations of > - C++0x features that do not reflect the final C++0x standard.</p> > +<p><strong>Important</strong>: GCC's support for C++11 is still > +<strong>experimental</strong>.</p> I'd keep the second sentence here. Otherwise it looks good. Jason ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-10-31 5:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2011-10-31 9:36 ` Jason Merrill @ 2011-11-01 3:56 ` Jason Merrill 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jason Merrill @ 2011-11-01 3:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Oleg Endo, Joe Buck, Jonathan Wakely, Nathan Ridge, gcc I've checked this in with some tweaks. Jason ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: C++11 no longer experimental 2011-10-30 14:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2011-10-30 14:50 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-30 18:27 ` Oleg Endo @ 2011-10-30 19:20 ` Jonathan Wakely 2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-10-30 19:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: Joe Buck, Jason Merrill, Nathan Ridge, gcc On 30 October 2011 13:14, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Joe Buck wrote: >> No, the page now claims something that is incorrect. The C++0x draft >> is no longer evolving. C++11 is an official standard now. > > How about the patch below? It tries to reflect the release of > C++11. There definitely will be more adjustments, but this is > a first step addressing the issue Joe raised (and a bit more). I've changed my local tree to update all the references to C++0x in the libstdc++ docs (except references to the -std=c++0x option) which I'll check in when I get a chance. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-11-01 3:56 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-09-21 17:51 C++11 no longer experimental Nathan Ridge 2011-09-21 17:58 ` James Dennett 2011-09-21 18:01 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-21 18:07 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-21 18:26 ` Joe Buck 2011-09-21 18:34 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-21 19:52 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-30 14:04 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2011-10-30 14:50 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-30 18:27 ` Oleg Endo 2011-10-31 5:37 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2011-10-31 9:36 ` Jason Merrill 2011-11-01 3:56 ` Jason Merrill 2011-10-30 19:20 ` Jonathan Wakely
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).