On 29-12-2014 16:34, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
The note about C++14 conformance is great as it stands modulo link errors.
Why is it great to not mention the experimental qualifier?
Do all files / libraries have to be compiled with the same -std option?
If so, this option causes ABI issues by its
On 29-12-2014 18:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29 December 2014 at 15:34, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
The note on C++14 conformance referred to is not the place for this but: is
our C++11 support really less tested and more experimental than our C++03
support at this point? One thing I can think of
On 26-12-2014 1:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25 December 2014 at 16:28, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/ links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ (GCC 5 C++14
language feature-complete [2014-12-23]) which doesn't exist.
It should probably be https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/status
Hi,
https://gcc.gnu.org/ links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ (GCC 5 C++14
language feature-complete [2014-12-23]) which doesn't exist.
> Important: Because the final ISO C++14 standard was only recently
published, GCC's support is experimental.
Is C++11 support no longer experimental? Is C+
