On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal <a.t...@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
