Summary of C++0x Feature Availability
in [C++]
|
Prev: Is "<unsigned type here> var = -1;" specified behavior?
Next: I keep running into long term c++ programmers who refuse to use exceptions
From: Mathias Gaunard on 8 Mar 2010 20:18 On 8 mar, 19:17, Scott Meyers <NeverR...(a)aristeia.com> wrote: > Mathias Gaunard wrote: > > You give the current support of a MSVC beta, but not that of the 4.5 > > branch of GCC? > > Right, sorry. I give information for what I personally checked. If it makes > you feel any better, I don't give information for MSVC 10 RC, which came out > recently. I haven't had time to do any testing with that compiler, either. The reference link you provided for GCC provides status for both 4.4 and 4.5. I assumed you used that. -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Scott Meyers on 9 Mar 2010 00:38 Mathias Gaunard wrote: > The reference link you provided for GCC provides status for both 4.4 > and 4.5. I assumed you used that. I didn't put together any information on any compiler I didn't personally check. Given the interest in gcc 4.5 and the availability of information for it, I will add a column for it when I have the time -- by the end of the month, I hope. Scott -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Bart van Ingen Schenau on 10 Mar 2010 02:10 On Mar 9, 6:38 pm, Scott Meyers <NeverR...(a)aristeia.com> wrote: > Mathias Gaunard wrote: > > The reference link you provided for GCC provides status for both 4.4 > > and 4.5. I assumed you used that. > > I didn't put together any information on any compiler I didn't personally check. > Given the interest in gcc 4.5 and the availability of information for it, I > will add a column for it when I have the time -- by the end of the month, I hope. Perhaps you could state on the coverpage that you only report on compilers (-versions) that you have tested yourself, and that you are not just summarising information from the vendors. > > Scott > Bart v Ingen Schenau -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Scott Meyers on 11 Mar 2010 02:53 Bart van Ingen Schenau wrote: > Perhaps you could state on the coverpage that you only report on > compilers (-versions) that you have tested yourself, and that you are > not just summarising information from the vendors. Fair enough. I'll add that when I get the chance. Scott -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Herb Sutter on 14 Mar 2010 11:27
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:00:00 CST, Scott Meyers <NeverRead(a)aristeia.com> wrote: >Brian wrote: >> To summarize the summary, it looks like gnu, intel and microsoft >> are leading the pack. Whereas HP, IBM and Sun are falling >> behind. I'm just glad that Microsoft isn't at the very back of the conformance pack this time. :-) >Something else worth taking away from the summary is that there is a *lot* of >C++0x available to play with right now. auto, lambdas, rvalue references, >variadic templates, uniform initialization, nullptr, decltype, static_assert, >default and deleted functions, unique_ptr, forward_list, regular expressions, >and a whole bunch more are at your disposal. Alas, no compiler (that I know of) >offers all these things at the same time, but for purposes of playing around >with different features (and many combinations of features), C++0x is your oyster. And yesterday we voted out the C++0x FCD. (Woo-hoo!) Modulo bug fixes and corner cases, this should be It. I didn't realize how much of a turning point this week would feel like, at least for me personally. It was kind of like I felt rather than heard a distant "click" somewhere of the pieces snapping together: the committee agreeing that the feature list is now final; the implementations of key features starting to be delivered into real customers' hands; the availability of many features in multiple shipping implementations this year -- including multiple shipping implementations available by this summer of auto, for loops, move semantics, lambdas, and more that I'm probably forgetting; and Bjarne starting work in earnest on TC++PL 4e. It also struck me this week that this feels a lot like the mid/late 1990s again -- a new standard is coming that is adding significant features to the language, and actual compiler implementations still vary. There's a lot of room again for teaching material about how to learn the new features, how to know what's portable today and what's not, how to write code in a future-proof way that's portable today and will stay portable tomorrow but also be ready to take advantage of new features, etc. Hmm, maybe it's time... --- Herb Sutter (herbsutter.wordpress.com) (www.gotw.ca) Convener, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG21 (C++) (www.gotw.ca/iso) Visual C++ architect, Microsoft (www.gotw.ca/microsoft) -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] |