On 01/13/2016 12:25 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/01/16 09:53 -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
[snip]
Thanks for doing this. I have a one big question not addressed by
your patch, and few nit-picky tech-writerish comments.
The big question is: the existing text in standards.texi says that
"GCC implements the majority of C++98 (@code{export} is a notable
exception) and most of the changes in C++03." Is it still the case
that there are unimplemented language features from these older
versions of the standard? If so, is there a detailed list anywhere of
what features are not supported, as there is for the C++11 feature
status?
The 'export' feature is definitely still not implemented, and never
will be.
The only other missing C++03 feature I can think of is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
Jason?
Hmmm, it seems like we ought to have a complete list of known
unimplemented features, but if there's nothing to link to here at the
present time, then don't hold up the rest of the patch for that reason.
How about:
Some options for compiling C programs, such as @option{-std}, are also
relevant for C++ programs.
@xref{C Dialect Options,,Options Controlling C Dialect}.
?
Yes, that's fine.
s/will disable/disables/
(assuming this is an already-implemented feature and not something
that will be added at some future date....)
Agreed. That was copied from existing text in the previous section,
should I make the same change there?
Please. Eventually I will try to get around to making a copy-editing
pass through this chapter myself, but meanwhile I think fixing docs to
use the present tense to describe the current behavior of GCC falls
under the "obvious fix" rule.
The patch is OK with those changes.
-Sandra
