From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3539 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2004 20:55:42 -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 3498 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2004 20:55:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO merlin.cs.tamu.edu) (128.194.146.35) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Sep 2004 20:55:41 -0000 Received: by merlin.cs.tamu.edu (Postfix, from userid 500) id 439B1354CE; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:55:34 -0500 (CDT) To: Mark Mitchell Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Matt Austern , Nathan Sidwell , Jason Merrill Subject: Re: DR handling for C++ References: <414F37E0.3020509@codesourcery.com> <414F41F7.40306@codesourcery.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <414F41F7.40306@codesourcery.com> Organization: Texas A&M University, Department of Computer Science Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 21:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01193.txt.bz2 Mark Mitchell writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | >| 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 | > | >I don't understand this part. Are you implying that there is no point | >for -std=c++98 behaves differently than -std=c++03 (assuming the last | >ever existed?)? | > | Yes, that is what I am saying. I do not think it's worthwhile for GNU | C++ to have a C++98 mode that is separate from a C++03 mode. Much of | what has changed in C++03 is clarifications to C++98; in those cases, | it's not possible to know what C++98 should have done with the code, | because the actual C++98 standard did not say. If we do that, then we should probably align with the library too. Otherwise it would become a very confusing situation. -- Gaby