This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

DR handling for C++


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

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.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]