Re: Update to c9xstatus.html

["Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>]

> Joseph, thanks for that patch!  As far as I can see, it is fine but I'd
> like to wait a bit until Martin von Löwis, the original author of that
> page has had the chance to have a look as well.
> 
> Hope you don't mind, and sorry for the delay...

Please take my apologies as well.

Reading from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-06/msg00350.html,
I have a number of comments

>> someone should check this against the actual standard, and add any
>> additional new features mentioned there, and update the comment at
>> the start to refer to the standard.

It seems that an actual paper copy is hard to find, so I'd really
appreciate if you could do such check (and a subsequent patch)
yourself - it is unlikely that anybody will beat you to that.

>> Arguably the file should be renamed to c99status.html.

Definitely. Gerald, can you please rename the file, fix the links,
etc? Ideally, the server would generate a LocationChanged response (or
whatever it is in HTTP) when the file is accessed. For Apache, this
can be arranged with a proper .htaccess fil.

>> I propose to submit testcases ... is gcc.dg the appropriate place
>> for such tests?

The GCC testsuite is really not a conformance testsuite, so if you are
interested in building one, it may be worth doing that as a separate
project. However, having tests for the features that gcc supports is
always good, as well; gcc.dg is probably as good as any other place
(the other place being gcc.c-torture - is is more a matter of the
framework you want to use).

So, by any means, go ahead and submit them.

>> more precise aliasing rules via effective type

Which feature is that? Does it have to do with -fstrict-aliasing?

>> new block scopes for selection and iteration statements

I guess this refers to the C++ish

  for(int i=0;i<10;i++)...

(6.8.5) which is MISSING in GCC. I don't know about any change in the
selection-statement to this respect, though.

>> idempotent type qualifiers

What's that?

Otherwise, these changes all look fine to me.

Regards,
Martin