public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@cs.tamu.edu>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Matt Austern <matt@lafstern.org>,
	Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>,
	Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: DR handling for C++
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:54:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3isa8wu5h.fsf@merlin.cs.tamu.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <414F37E0.3020509@codesourcery.com>

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

| I've been asked to provide my input on the handling of DRs in the C++
| front end.

Historically, we have not been that methodoligical -- in the C++
front-end.  I believe part of the confusion comes from the fact that
library policies were being discussed within the comments on Matt's
patch. 

| 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?)?

| 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.

That makes a great deal of sense.

| 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.

I'm support of -fpermissive disappearing.  I would not cry if
-pedantic suddenly became inexistent (but I guess that is too much for
the moment).  Indeed, most of the pedwarns should just be hard errors,
with an exceptional set being warnings.  If -pedantic disappeared
then, it would be clear that -pedantic-errors should just go away too.

-- 
                                                        Gabriel Dos Reis
                                                         gdr@cs.tamu.edu
	 Texas A&M University -- Computer Science Department
	301, Bright Building -- College Station, TX 77843-3112

  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-09-20 20:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-09-20 20:44 Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 20:47 ` Dale Johannesen
2004-09-20 20:55   ` Andrew Pinski
2004-09-20 21:26     ` Dale Johannesen
2004-09-20 21:00   ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 21:04     ` Matt Austern
2004-09-20 21:08       ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 21:36       ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-20 23:42       ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-21  8:28         ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-09-21  8:43           ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-09-21 12:39           ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-09-20 20:54 ` Gabriel Dos Reis [this message]
2004-09-20 21:01   ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 21:07     ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-20 21:14       ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 21:41 ` Matt Austern
2004-09-20 22:32   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-09-20 22:59   ` Mark Mitchell
2004-09-20 23:12     ` Matt Austern
2004-09-20 23:16       ` Mark Mitchell
2004-10-18  9:19 ` Jason Merrill

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=m3isa8wu5h.fsf@merlin.cs.tamu.edu \
    --to=gdr@cs.tamu.edu \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jason@redhat.com \
    --cc=mark@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=matt@lafstern.org \
    --cc=nathan@codesourcery.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).