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: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 16:12:54 +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> <54A29FB3 dot 7010303 at xwis dot net> <54A2C4DD dot 3020705 at verizon dot net>
On 30 December 2014 at 15:29, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
> On 12/30/2014 07:50 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>>
>> On 29-12-2014 16:34, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>>>
>>> The note about C++14 conformance is great as it stands modulo link
>>> errors.
>>
>>
>> Why is it great to not mention the experimental qualifier?
The point of the announcement is not to repeat all the information
that is already provided elsewhere (specifically on the page the
announcement links to), and since the experimental status didn't
change there's nothing to announce w.r.t that status.
I think you're just being picky - does it really matter?
>> Do all files / libraries have to be compiled with the same -std option?
No. That has never been necessary.
>> If so, this option causes ABI issues by itself.
>>
>> Olaf
>>
>>
> I should have replaced 'conformance' with 'feature completeness' in my
> sentences.
> The words in the message indicate 'features'. The word experimental appears
> in bold.
>
> My understanding is that the C++11 ABI changes to string, list,
> ios_base::failure (are there others?) that have been queued for a while have
> been put into gcc5. This is the big release. There was a message
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg01669.html (and subsequent) on
> this.
> Check https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg00268.html for
> std::list.
> Check https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-11/msg01750.html for
> std::ios_base::failure.
>
> I'm quite sure that once the ABI issues have been stabilized appropriate
> formal announcements and documentation will appear on this subject.
Exactly. It would be premature to announce them while I'm still fixing
the fall-out.
I still don't understand what a C++14 announcement has to do with the
status of C++11.
The entire thread seems to boil down to "I'm not happy with an
announcement of X, why doesn't it also make an announcement of Y?" so
I'm going to stop wasting my time in this thread.