This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Add hexfloat/defaultfloat io manipulators.
- From: Luke Allardyce <lukeallardyce at gmail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, RÃdiger Sonderfeld <ruediger at c-plusplus dot de>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:56:19 +0900
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Add hexfloat/defaultfloat io manipulators.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140327133723 dot GA13599 at redhat dot com> <1901588 dot qodTErPe42 at descartes> <20140327162714 dot GA13192 at redhat dot com> <CAFW6PZC0u5=i-KqQZZsbkmg5iWr6u2WVnnBQVqG8V2Bt6oOzOg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTyy5_98zcGCDNOkwTnfmLYHnb+r9m=ktNMCDw2LXWzqA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAFW6PZAA_ujYRMWB8DqytG99=G=a-MbONyf9SkqHa02YUi6htg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140416101950 dot GV6807 at redhat dot com>
> Thanks, I was wrong about that.
>
> Then I think we should just bite the bullet and provide the new
> behaviour. If we do have an abi_tag on those types in the next release
> then we can preserve the old behaviour in the old ABI and use the
> C++11 semantics for the abi_tagged type, which will be used for both
> C++03 and C++11 code. I am not too concerned that people who use a
> meaningless modifier in C++03 code get the C++11 behaviour. If they
> really want %g or %G then they shouldn't use fixed|scientific.
Does that mean abi_tag will be enabled with separate compiler flag /
define rather than checking against the __cplusplus value?