gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

[Alec Teal]

On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal <a.teal@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
>>>> On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>>> On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
>>>>>> Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
>>>>>> C++11 would be added in to GCC?
>>>>> Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, it'll be done when volunteer maintainers do it.
>>>> Nice, play the volunteer card, while not wrong that was a crap reply.
>>> Feel free to produce a better one.
>> About the time Clang does because GCC now has to compete."
>> How about that? Clang is currently slightly ahead and GCC really needs to
>> change if it is to continue to be the best.
> Crap reply, it's just wishful thinking. Who says GCC has to or will
> "finish" when Clang does?  Are you going to do the missing work? Or
> get someone else to?  Do you know something those of us actually
> working on it don't know?  If not your answer has no value.
I'd like to, that's why I'm here, GCC is a massive amount of code, it's 
like day 3 of looking at it
I realize that right now I have hope of making a worth-while 
contribution. I do hate the volunteer card
though, it's like talking to Vegans anything problem you talk about 
comes down to "Well the orphans I
helped in Peru ... ".
A technical reason of priorities or difficulty, a link to a road map, 
whatever, it'd be more productive than:
"Don't winge, it's done by volunteers".

OR!
A child requesting pudding without finishing their dinner, "eat more 
dinner" -> "I'm full" -> "No room for pudding"
again, technically true but really unproductive.
>
> Having implemented large chunks of the C++11 standard library unpaid
> in my spare time, for my own reasons, I'm not competing with anyone
> and I'm all for Andrew pointing out there's no schedule and progress
> depends on factors that can't be estimated.
I'm not saying getting some project managers would be a good thing!
> A significant proportion of the people using Clang are doing so with
> libstdc++ not libc++, so they're using our code anyway, how do you say
> which is "best" there?
>
Clang has much better error messages, LLVM is a much better IR, Clang 
uses less memory, it's AST can be serialized, all
these things are actually REALLY good, GCC is archaic coming from a time 
before I was born where computers didn't have the memory to
store whole programs in ram (iffy point, yes, but just go with it), 
hence the source->transaction->compile to object->link all objects and 
makefiles
ALL GOOD THINGS, I am not saying "abolish Make" or use tinyCC or some 
extreme form of this, but times have changed, programs are so huge now that
a lifetime of devotion by one person wouldn't finish them, using LLVM 
with some other things for a JIT is a valid use, why write your own JIT 
compiler when LLVM exists?
Anything you write wouldn't be as good. You're one person, so seriously, 
why all this bitching?

Rather than "define best!" why not talk about the features that are 
GENERALLY agreed to be good in Clang and non-existent/not as good/bad in 
GCC and maybe how to add them?

Alec