Try to catch up _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS comments and documentation.

[Ed Smith-Rowland]

On 03/16/2014 08:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 15 March 2014 14:46, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>> I'm resending this because I forgot to dupe to gcc-patches and I'd like one
>> thread.
>>
>> This should be pure commentary and documentation.
>>
>> I hope I got all these.  I grepped for DR and added
>> _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS where it seemed needed.
>> I did not add in cases where DR mentions were more commentary.
>>
>> Then I added the new _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS to the xml intro page.
>>
>> OK?  Can anyone think of one I left out?
> In many of these cases I'd actually prefer to remove the comment
> mentioning a DR, rather than add the RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS marker.
>
> For example:
>
> DR 1204: this says we don't need to check for self-move-assignment. It
> applies to every move assignment operator in the library. It is not a
> defect against C++03, and the resolution is part of the final C++11
> standard, so I don't think we should document that we implement it.
>
> DR 1261: another one with "C++11" status, meaning it was included in
> the C++11 standard, and this one also isn't relevant to C++03, so of
> course we implement it, and we shouldn't even mention it in comments
> or docs.
>
> DR 675, DR 776: these aren't relevant to C++03, and are part of C++11
> (since the CD1 draft)
>
> So I think adding RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS is the wrong thing to do, I'd
> rather not touch them.  Personally I'm in favour of completely remove
> any mention of DRs that are fixes to C++0x drafts, not post-C++11
> fixes, but that might be more controversial.
>
OK, thinking further on it I actually agree with not mentioning DRs on a 
partially baked standard.  We advertise that support for new standards 
is experimental.

This whole thing is less of a deal now that the standard is moving so 
quickly and problems are easily incorporated into the next standard.

I'll put something new out tonight or tomorrow.