This is the mail archive of the 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)

Howard Hinnant <> writes:


| (c) Know that there exist committee members who will ask before
| voting something out of EWG (which is a step or three prior to
| getting into the WP):  Has this been implemented?  If the answer is
| no, no matter how useful or simple the feature is, their vote will be
| no on principle:  Nothing goes into the WP without a reference
| implementation.

That is overstating the case, and the actual reality is far more
reasonable than Howard suggests.  I'm sure, if pressed hard enough, he
would come with things EWG voted before implementation.  This is not
the place to debate about EWG policies, so we can continue EWG policy
over private mails.

Under the proposed plan, we're heading experimental route in the hope
of luring more users into using GCC because it would be the first to
implement some new features.  Such features come with command-line
options, which triggers hard error (current GCC behaviour) when not
supported.  Consequently, the additional macro feature-test is
unnecessary bloat and distraction: if the feature is not supported,
the compiler would not even get the chance to get to the source code
that test it. 

-- Gaby

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