This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Douglas Gregor <doug dot gregor at gmail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:36:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: C++ PATCH: PR 20599 (1/3)
- References: <450A658C.email@example.com> <450F024C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060919173834.GR31210@synopsys.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4511B690.email@example.com> <4516CCFB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <0535BDD0-FEEB-4C4D-823D-2EC7FC9BC2B6@osl.iu.edu> <email@example.com> <45202D43.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
I only want to restate that the initial issue, variadic templates,
remains unresolved: the library and GCC as a whole has a lot to gain
from the availability of such feature (see the "competitive advantage"
point often raised). But I understand the general policy to which we are
converging, I cannot disagree.
So, with that amendment, i.e., with the addition of:Looks good to me.
(d) predefine a macro (or macros) that indicates that we're in C++0x mode
are there objections to the policy set out above? Point (d) doesn't
mean that we can't predefine many macros (for various features) or that
we have to use any particular value; it's just saying that we'll give
users some way of figuring out what dialect of C++ they're using.
I was thinking that maybe we can be optimistic: even if variadic
templates will not appear any time soon in a released GCC, the
availability of a complete implementation + testcases +
re-implementation of TR1 facilities should be fine to reassure the C++
Committee that the feature is implementable and works well in practice!
If that is the case, we can hope that the standardization process will
be fast and also hope that in the window of time when the feature will
be in draft, received favorably by the committee, but still subject to
minor changes it will be allowed to go in GCC rather soon, maybe a bit
sooner than per the general rules...