This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 404 @ https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net>
- Cc: Olaf van der Spek <olaf at xwis dot net>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:36:26 +0000
- Subject: Re: 404 @ https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <549C3B3B dot 7030100 at xwis dot net> <CAH6eHdTkWYU6ha4KV8eibwyd_vaXrv6z1ofQtrPKDGhocRiKLQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <549F4A0D dot 20808 at xwis dot net> <CAH6eHdRr661EsTk1Tc4-u0ZK1d8wkW3iwTgiDojUV2fz-Ehp3Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <54A17471 dot 1060903 at verizon dot net>
On 29 December 2014 at 15:34, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> The note on C++14 conformance referred to is not the place for this but: is
> our C++11 support really less tested and more experimental than our C++03
> support at this point? One thing I can think of might be gcc bootstrap.
The main difference is ABI stability, which is not guaranteed for
C++11 (but should be once the std::string changes and resulting churn
settle down).
> I could be wrong but I sense the subtext of the OP is perhaps a request for
> a roadmap and guidance for which C++ language version is best supported.
> We can't offer a roadmap on default language until we have a big
> conversation and exploration of technical issues.
>
> I imagine we should at least wait until C++11 ABI churn has died down.
Yep, only then can we say C++11 support is not experimental, and at
some point after that can discuss making -std=c++11 the default.