This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: std random


Joe Buck wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 02:29:26PM -0800, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>>> * To do that, I want to avoid depending on the C++0x API/ABI, and
>>> depend only on the more stable "traditional C++" API/ABI.
>> Great. Situation normal.
>>
>>> But, I
>>> might still want to use C++0x language features in my application.
>> This is where you loose me. "Doctor, it hurts when I do this thing."

[For Benjamin]

Why?  It's like saying I want to use C99 VLAs, but that I don't want to
use C99's floating-point library support.

> I think that gcc -std=c++0x should give the best approximation that
> we have, and that it would be a mistake to default to some hybrid mode
> with a c++0x-style compiler and an old-c++ library.  It certainly
> would be surprising.  While we don't want users to start shipping
> binaries with this stuff, we do want them to test it.

[For Joe]

Independent of the defaults, what do you think about having a way to
turn off the library support, even if you have the language support?  Or
do we already?  What happens with -std=c++0x -U_GLIBCXX_CPP0X?

> Also, it is certain that the compiler aspects of C++0x (overloading
> for rvalue references and any other new features like that) are rock
> stable from an ABI point of view now?

I thin at least some of them are.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713


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