This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
DR handling for C++
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Matt Austern <matt at lafstern dot org>, Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>,Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:04:48 -0700
- Subject: DR handling for C++
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
I've been asked to provide my input on the handling of DRs in the C++
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.
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.