This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)


Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 9/19/06, Doug Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think this made it to the list...
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Doug Gregor <doug.gregor@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sep 19, 2006 10:34 AM
>> Subject: Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)
>> To: Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
>>
>>
>> On 9/19/06, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>  On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:27:09 -0400, "Doug Gregor"
>> >GCC could break this stale-mate by including experimental
>> >implementations of these features. Then, the community at large can
>> >experiment and better understand these features, finding (and fixing!)
>> >problems before the ink dries on C++0x.
>>
>> I mostly agree without your analysis. But I think it also matters
>> having a relatively long period of experimentation.
>>
>>  I don't think it's the length of time for experimentation, but the
>> amount of time spent in aggregate. If 100 people play with the feature
>> for 2-3 hours, we'll get a much better sense of its capabilities and
>> limitations than if one person spends 300 hours using that feature.
>> It's extremely hard to get people to download and install a new
>> compiler to try out a language feature. I've found this with
>> ConceptGCC: each time I give a talk or a demonstration, people would
>> come up to me and say how much they want to have this feature in their
>> compiler. But few... very few... actually go download the compiler to
>> try it. The barrier of installing a new compiler is just to high. But
>> if they could just flip a switch in their current compiler, they will
>> try it.
>>  Now you see why I am pushing for inclusion in a release, rather than
>> on a branch. A branch just doesn't give enough exposure for us to get
>> enough feedback.
> 
> In principle I agree.  But a branch is better than nothing, and once a
> branch
> is available I promise to make packages available for (at least) SUSE
> through
> the openSUSE buildservice so people can easily install it.
> 
> Richard.

FWIW...

You're right, better than nothing, esp. with your offer. However, the
packages probably wont work for users who get the trunk frequently. I'd
guess that people who try new features are likely to do this (well, I do).

I'd much prefer Mark's suggested (among other options) configure flag.
It could be named something fool-proof like
--with-unstable-partial-c++0x-support and be turned off by default and
whenever checking is turned off, thus preventing (I guess) distros from
using it.

Best, Peter


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