This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Unreviewed C++0x patches
Mark Mitchell wrote:
If we're not going to fix a long-standing bug in non-0x mode because
it's not a regression -- even though it might affect relatively many
people
I would be inclined to change that policy, too, as long as the patch is
deemed safe enough.
then fixing C++0x bugs (which presumably affect fewer, given
how new it is), seems wrong. We're introducing risk for relatively
little upside.
I disagree. Implementation experience is important to the
standardization process; it helps a lot for GCC to be available as a
sample implementation of some of the new features. Though I suppose
interested people could grab a snapshot of the trunk sources, that will
mean a disconnect between 4.3 usage and eventual standardized usage.
In general I think that bugs in new features should be fixed on the
release branch when feasible, rather than make people wait until the
following release series for the feature to become really usable.
Of course, the relative safety of the patch is a key consideration. In
this case, the only part of the patch that affects non-C++0x mode is a
change to template template parameter unification which has only been
touched previously in the context of working on variadic templates; I
would be surprised if it affected any users.
So, I think the bar ought to be very high. In particular, I think we
ought to consider this only for silent miscompilation, and only if all
changes are isolated with C++0x conditionals. And, if we're going to
consider these patches, then I think we ought to consider fixes for
other silent miscompilations as well, even if not regressions.
I think we should consider those regardless of the C++0x issue. I've
expressed before my disagreement with placing higher priority on
regressions than on wrong-code bugs.
Jason