Re: RFA: Deprecate C++ options

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

>    Perhaps you could take this into account when you make an informed
> decision, which makes more sense than asking me to make an uninformed
> decision. Because, as a user, the answer is I want both.

Right; I understand that.

Yes, there are some problems with the way that GCC has been implemented
that make these things hard, and there is also some inherent complexity.

>    The only opinion I can properly express: I would like to have a
> compiler that is not so incredibly slow and produces working code.

Right.  I would say my three personal pet peeves, in order, as a C++
user, are correctness, compile times, and robustness in the face of
errors.

   Truth is, I would have kept the mouth shut if there hadn't been such a
> sweeping statement about the effects on people who are unknown to you.

I'm sorry if I offended.  FWIW, I've been a C++ user for nearly as long
as anyone outside of AT&T, and have worked with a lot of real C++
users, so I'm not totally uninformed.

One of the annoyings things to some people is that these extensions to
support old code have been gradually breaking and changing their meaning
from G++ release to G++ release, partly due to their being no clear
definition of their semantics, and partly due to the fact that those
of us working on G++ tend to forget that they're there.

>    I hope that answers your question.

Thanks.  That was very helpful.

-- 
Mark Mitchell                mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com