Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On 22 January 2013 17:12, Alec Teal wrote:
> On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>
>> Crap reply, it's just wishful thinking. Who says GCC has to or will
>> "finish" when Clang does?  Are you going to do the missing work? Or
>> get someone else to?  Do you know something those of us actually
>> working on it don't know?  If not your answer has no value.
>
> I'd like to, that's why I'm here, GCC is a massive amount of code, it's like
> day 3 of looking at it
> I realize that right now I have hope of making a worth-while contribution. I
> do hate the volunteer card
> though, it's like talking to Vegans anything problem you talk about comes
> down to "Well the orphans I
> helped in Peru ... ".
> A technical reason of priorities or difficulty, a link to a road map,
> whatever, it'd be more productive than:
> "Don't winge, it's done by volunteers".

There is no road map. The reasons for missing features are recorded in
Bugzilla or the mailing list archives, or they're just not done yet
because noone's had time. Feel free to propose documentation/website
patches, or just update the wiki yourself, to gather that information
into once place, *that* would be more productive.

>> A significant proportion of the people using Clang are doing so with
>> libstdc++ not libc++, so they're using our code anyway, how do you say
>> which is "best" there?
>>
> Clang has much better error messages,

I disagree, I think G++'s template argument deduction failures are far
more informative. Please report bugs where you find deficiences, but
make sure you've read
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison and are using
recent versions, not repeating the unhelpful fact that Clang from 2010
has better diagnostics than GCC from 2006.

> LLVM is a much better IR, Clang uses
> less memory, it's AST can be serialized, all
> these things are actually REALLY good, GCC is archaic coming from a time
> before I was born where computers didn't have the memory to
> store whole programs in ram (iffy point, yes, but just go with it), hence
> the source->transaction->compile to object->link all objects and makefiles
> ALL GOOD THINGS, I am not saying "abolish Make" or use tinyCC or some
> extreme form of this, but times have changed, programs are so huge now that
> a lifetime of devotion by one person wouldn't finish them, using LLVM with
> some other things for a JIT is a valid use, why write your own JIT compiler
> when LLVM exists?

You seem to have gone off on a tangent.

I thought we were talking about C++11 support?

> Anything you write wouldn't be as good. You're one person, so seriously, why
> all this bitching?
>
> Rather than "define best!" why not talk about the features that are
> GENERALLY agreed to be good in Clang and non-existent/not as good/bad in GCC
> and maybe how to add them?


Welcome to the list, please search the archives before assuming you're
saying anything new here, we can do without yet another "why doesn't
GCC be more like Clang?" derailment.