[cfe-dev] Status of various C++0x features in Clang

[Carter Cheng]

Thanks for the replies. I do have one followup question. Since the
C++0x standard is still in draft form (and this might be a stupid
question), I am curious how stable various features are. I am
particularly interested in lambda expressions, uniform initializers
and the memory model(I think there was a recent CACM article that went
into some of the issues by Adve and Boehm) and perhaps template
aliases.

Regards,

Carter.



On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Jonathan Sauer <jonathan.sauer at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> I have been looking over the various features on the C++0x page and I
>>> was wondering if the list was of unimplemented items was up to date.
>>> There are several items I might be able to do since I have a bit of
>>> "downtime" at the moment.
>>
>> On the current page (http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html) you can read :
>>
>> Last updated: $Date: 2011-04-03 09:12:46 -0500 (Sun, 03 Apr 2011) $
>>
>> Last-week up-to-date.
>
> Well yes, but in the past C++0x features have been implemented in clang
> without updating the status page. And there's no guarantee that the page
> is accurately reflecting clang's C++0x status now (even though it's closer
> than a few weeks back). Incidentally, "local classes as template parameters"
> seems to have been at least partially implemented, going from the fact that
> it is possible in some cases (and not possible in others, i.e. clang crash[*]).
>
> So Carter: I think the best would be to discuss the features you want to
> implement here; others might point out which parts (or even all) have
> already been done.
>
> In any case, it is great to see further improvements on the C++0x front :-)
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> [*] I'm still working on a test case
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>