Really? I would really like to see this. It's totally safe, and we actually had full C++14 support *well* before the branch.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Bill Wendling <[email protected]> wrote: > I know that ’14 is out now, but that happened after the branching. I don’t > even know if we’re promising full c++14 support in this. Let’s just wait > until the next release. > > -bw > > On Aug 19, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 19 Aug 2014 08:55, "Aaron Ballman" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected] > > > >>> wrote: > >>>> LGTM, thanks! > >>>> > >>>> It looks like you didn't add -std=gnu++14. Is there a reason for that? > >>>> It > >>>> seems useful, even if GCC doesn't support it yet. > >>> > >>> I wasn't certain whether we wanted it. I will add it in. > >>> > >>>> Also, I spied a CXX1YCOMPAT macro in one of the tests you updated :) > >>> > >>> I will double-check that and fix before committing. > >>> > >>> Blind curiosity, is this something we want for the release? Or has > >>> that ship sailed? > >> > >> If Bill is amenable, adding just the -std=c++14 change directly to the > >> branch (and none of the other renaming) seems like a good idea to me. > > > > Bill, what are your thoughts on this idea? > > > > ~Aaron > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
