On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal <a.t...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >> On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote: >>> >>> On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for >>>>> C++11 would be added in to GCC? >>>> >>>> Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html >>>> >>>> As usual, it'll be done when volunteer maintainers do it. >>> >>> Nice, play the volunteer card, while not wrong that was a crap reply. >> >> Feel free to produce a better one. > > About the time Clang does because GCC now has to compete." > How about that? Clang is currently slightly ahead and GCC really needs to > change if it is to continue to be the best.
Crap reply, it's just wishful thinking. Who says GCC has to or will "finish" when Clang does? Are you going to do the missing work? Or get someone else to? Do you know something those of us actually working on it don't know? If not your answer has no value. Having implemented large chunks of the C++11 standard library unpaid in my spare time, for my own reasons, I'm not competing with anyone and I'm all for Andrew pointing out there's no schedule and progress depends on factors that can't be estimated. A significant proportion of the people using Clang are doing so with libstdc++ not libc++, so they're using our code anyway, how do you say which is "best" there?
