On 19/05/2019 19:48, Matthew Fernandez wrote:
>
> Agreed, but you can get a pretty accurate record from
> https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx11 which
> shows everything relevant was completed before 4.9. In practice, I have
> not experienced anything that makes me doubt this table.
I do doubt such tables by default: they are just more claims with more
details. Such things need to be tried out more explicitly.
> I am all for bumping up that old MinGW build environment, but it is up
> to David Matthews to do something about it, or leave the status-quo
> unchanged.
I see 3 possibilities here:
(1) leave status-quo: stability remains mostly unchanged, with minor
downwards tendency in the long run (old gcc on new OS/HW versions)
(2) bump gcc, leave c++ standard unchanged: slight increase of
stability (assuming that gcc generally becomes better over time)
(3) bump c++ standard, leave gcc unchanged: potential loss of
stability (old gcc on new language standard -- unproven technology)
Makarius
_______________________________________________
polyml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/polyml
