https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Benjamin Buch from comment #10) > In my option this is a very bad and hard to acceptable situation, even in an > experimental mode. Especially since C++20 already has a wide adoption these > days. > > So I ask you to undefine the feature test macro and set the implementation > state to partial. > > Also I propose to introduce -std=c++XXpreview flags for all (new) > experimental language modes instead of -std=c++XX which misleadingly > indicates that the mode is ready to use. The documentation might name the > modes as experimental, but I think its much more user-friendly to make the > flag itself expressive. Except if you read the documentation, it mentions they are still experimental. Moving over to xyzpreview is NOT going to help the situtation at all because folks will still use those options even if it is still in experimental stage in production code. There is no techincal solution to a non techincal (societial) problem .
