Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic LLVM's Clang Compiler Is Now C++11 Feature Complete

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

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

    The Clang C/C++ compiler front-end to LLVM is now declared "feature complete" against the C++11 ISO standard...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM1NTg

  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
    I was speaking more generally (for example ACPI). All major != All.
    Welcome to reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • LightBit
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    All major compilers have implemented all the major features. Looks like they are respected just fine.
    I was speaking more generally (for example ACPI). All major != All.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LightBit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LightBit
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LightBit
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gamerk2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X