Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LLVM's Clang Compiler Is Now C++11 Feature Complete

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    For example: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...2008/n2670.htm

    It seems like they have standardized something unfinished. It should be implement than standardize.
    On the other hand they say minimal implementation is trivial:
    Implement first and then standardization is called a late standardization and that is how LSB works. Compiler standardization doesn't work like that.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
      Implement first and then standardization is called a late standardization and that is how LSB works. Compiler standardization doesn't work like that.
      It did on start. C was being implemented from 1969 and standardized in 1990.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
        It did on start. C was being implemented from 1969 and standardized in 1990.
        You are confusing two very different things here. C, C++ etc had no standards at all initially. Some popular compiler extensions have been standardized because they got adopted by other compilers but once the standardization process starts, a specification comes with a prototype implementation but the final implementation is done after the full standard is published. This is the only feasible way to implement a language standard with multiple competing implementations.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by artivision View Post
          That multi-tread model that some of you describe doesn't exist. For example, a video encoding program can have 1000 threads for a movie. That's because a movie has a key-frame every 6 second and the next frames are depend on that frame. So 6000 seconds=1000 maximum possible threads. Cannot have 2000 threads even if "God" wants to. An office program cannot have more than two threads for the same reason. You have a program with if/else, first goes the one and only then the other. You have two equations, you cannot run them in parallel because the outcome of the first is a variable of the second, so you must have the first finished. Programming language has nothing to do with paralelization. And those helpers cannot do magically the job.
          Thats not a problem with the threading model, just the data you are working on. Two different issues.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
            You are confusing two very different things here. C, C++ etc had no standards at all initially. Some popular compiler extensions have been standardized because they got adopted by other compilers but once the standardization process starts, a specification comes with a prototype implementation but the final implementation is done after the full standard is published. This is the only feasible way to implement a language standard with multiple competing implementations.
            Prototype implementation is fine.
            So they saw problems and ignore them?
            They could wait until next revision.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by LightBit View Post
              Prototype implementation is fine.
              So they saw problems and ignore them?
              They could wait until next revision.
              I gave you a reference which shows the details. If you bothered to read, you would know that the issues didn't come up in the prototype implemention and moreover it isn't a major feature at all. So I don't see why you anyone should care.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                I gave you a reference which shows the details. If you bothered to read, you would know that the issues didn't come up in the prototype implemention and moreover it isn't a major feature at all. So I don't see why you anyone should care.
                That means prototype implementation was too incomplete.
                I don't really care, but C++ programers should care since it is standard not a recommendation.
                If it is so unimportant feature, why standardize it?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                  That means prototype implementation was too incomplete.
                  I don't really care, but C++ programers should care since it is standard not a recommendation.
                  If it is so unimportant feature, why standardize it?
                  No, it doesn't mean that at all and you would have known that had you read the reference and understood it. Why should C++ programmers care when no compiler implements it? If it was implemented, it might have an useful feature. Now that noone is implementing it, the next revision might deprecate it. Thats how standardization works.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                    No, it doesn't mean that at all and you would have known that had you read the reference and understood it. Why should C++ programmers care when no compiler implements it? If it was implemented, it might have an useful feature. Now that noone is implementing it, the next revision might deprecate it. Thats how standardization works.
                    And than we are surprised why standards are not respected.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                      And than we are surprised why standards are not respected.
                      All major compilers have implemented all the major features. Looks like they are respected just fine.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X