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++ defect reports: how to behave

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:

Joe Buck <> wrote:

IMO, we should implement the DR's without needing a separate switch
for them.

Just to be sure, you're suggesting to implement also all the defects with
"WP" status without a different dialect? Even if they modify the semantic
of existing programs?

Issues with "WP" status are for the next version of the standard, so if
they conflict with the current standard, they form a different dialect.
But from my scanning of the list of "WP" issues, most are simply
clarifications or corrections, some considered not important enough to go
in now, so implementing them does not form a different dialect.

I don't mind either way. If there is consensus about implementing both TC1
and WP defect reports into -std=c++98, I'll prepare a little patch for
standards.texi specifying this. I would like to hear a comment from a C++
maintainer though.

I'm not a C++ maintainer, but I do attend standards committee meetings
regularly. My advice is to incorporate TC1 defect reports only. They're
stable. Issues in 'DR' and 'WP' status aren't necessarily stable: there
have been at least a few occasions when an issue has gone into 'DR' status
and then been changed.


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