This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Bernd Schmidt <bernds at codesourcery dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:41:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8
- References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <CAGWvnymDHXtN1AR9hdrYpV7UVw-rkk5ZiM0kS9DbVLY24xQ-6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAAiZkiA29bnrEHg3jHyOtmdFo1HewaW-rp3KYOKC+gfEQ1pXzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0wG3ha4B4BgA6g4NPnBG6Pj3iuMZ+_B+3AOgBkKvXpLg@mail.gmail.com> <4F7C35A3.3080207@codesourcery.com> <CAFiYyc0knheu7jRBUd5Vtva5Bj7GBypzCQ9BFmFYGXzLcFBYGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAkRFZ+4RfHszKh50DW1wKSis0wo3516Hy8626FNpYwgGWdABQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120410084614.GJ6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204101425310.25409@wotan.suse.de> <CAAkRFZJp0TbK_nCEvfPrvekhQ2m8Ywj9jrBa121dY2q4pHxOVg@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204101814180.25409@wotan.suse.de> <1334078968.11195.64.camel@triegel.csb> <CAFiYyc1=-E5GhLU1_pgWooDNOfB4Hb4MynTEF1pgfAiUrHXHKg@mail.gmail.com> <1334149073.3101.23.camel@triegel.csb> <CAFiYyc3N7MzW06nSiJgmZ5HR7qYFcXkR=Yz_z6a_s2m+ciGAMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAAkRFZ+4apO-5t0B7QsBUakB2HFfeuc=YAze3gfU6e9zmix3yQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdQO9ex9ms-rdoakLbdYgvQPx=AxOiTjg4qrFMuTHE1OcA@mail.gmail.! com>
On 04/11/2012 07:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> GCC's diagnostics have got a lot better recently.
>
> The http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html page compares clang's
> diagnostics to GCC 4.2, which was outdated long before that page was
> written.
>
> It doesn't help GCC's cause when people keep repeating that outdated info :-)
Spelling out the obvious, IWBVN if someone from the gcc camp did a
similar comparison using a current gcc. Is there such a page somewhere?
--
Pedro Alves