[cfe-dev] Update to C++0x feature table

[Douglas Gregor]

On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Michael Price wrote:

> I've attached a second patch.  Could someone with privs commit it?  Also see inline comments below.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Michael Price <michael.b.price.dev at gmail.com
>  > wrote:
>  > The diff is attached.
>  > I used the following sources:
>  > Bjarne - http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html
>  > Scott Meyers - http://www.aristeia.com/C++0x/C++0xFeatureAvailability.htm
>  > Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C++0x
> 
> Some additional items and different [not useful] organizations of the
> features are here:
> 
> http://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C++0xCompilerSupport
> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
> 
>  > Things I like about my changes:
>  > 1. Near complete listing of core language changes.
>  > 2. Links to STL implementation status pages.
>  > 3. I like the classification of features.
>  > Things I don't like about my changes:
>  > 1. I would love to provide links into the current draft for each
> feature,
>  > but I couldn't find a way to link into the draft PDF.
>  > 2. I wish there were a better way to classify features (as some are
>  > cross-cutting).
>  > Indifferent:
>  > 1. Draft proposal documents.  I included and expanded them because
> they were
>  > there before.
>  >
>  > There is still one extra thing that I haven't done, which is to
> provide some
>  > sort of desired priority, or if that is too difficult, some way to
> indicate
>  > dependent relationships between features.
> 
> A few paper numbers to add:
> * sizeof on members without object instance is N2150, 5.1.1p10
> * nullptr is also N2214
> * char16_t and char32_t are part of N2249
> 
> Other than that, it would be most helpful if current status were
> filled in so we all know what needs to be done.
> 
> Agreed.  Alas, I don't know enough to handle that, except for perhaps the type deduction stuff.
>  
> In my ideal world, as
> the status in each box is changed, a revision number is put in there
> since "releases" are infrequent.
> 
> 
> I had the same thought originally, but wasn't sure how to fit that information in with everything else.  I decided to separate the explanation of test status to another paragraph, and just stick an "rXXXXXX" in the complete block.  I figure that people could discern what that was for when they saw it.
>  
> Somebody more familiar with the draft should comment if any items are
> missing.
> 
> 
> There are sure to be some things I missed... anyone else looking?

This is great, Michael, thanks!

I made a few edits, dropping long double (which was part of C++98/03) and new function declarator syntax (which isn't in C++0x), updating status, etc., and committed as r122315.

	- Doug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20101220/d210ca7c/attachment.html>