[wwwdocs] Add feature-testing macros and std::is_final to gcc-5/changes.html

[Jonathan Wakely]

Note Ed's recent changes. Committed to CVS.

[Jonathan Wakely]

Post by Jonathan Wakely
Note Ed's recent changes. Committed to CVS.

And fix a markup error that I expected xmllint to catch :-(

[Ed Smith-Rowland]

Post by Jonathan Wakely

Post by Jonathan Wakely
Note Ed's recent changes. Committed to CVS.

And fix a markup error that I expected xmllint to catch :-(

Thank you! I tried to do this and couldn't for permissions. I'm
probably not doing it right.

Anyway, the real thing I wanted to suggest is we put a line for C-family
about the availability of __has_include and __has_include_next. We
could mention clang has it.

Thanks,

Ed

[Jonathan Wakely]

Post by Ed Smith-Rowland

Post by Jonathan Wakely

Post by Jonathan Wakely
Note Ed's recent changes. Committed to CVS.

And fix a markup error that I expected xmllint to catch :-(

Thank you! I tried to do this and couldn't for permissions. I'm
probably not doing it right.

If I remember my cvs-fu you need CVS_RHS=ssh and use
CVSROOT=:ext:$***@gcc.gnu.org:/cvs/gcc (with your sourceware.org
username as $USER) and then it should work over SSH just like svn and
git.

Post by Ed Smith-Rowland
Anyway, the real thing I wanted to suggest is we put a line for
C-family about the availability of __has_include and
__has_include_next. We could mention clang has it.

Good idea, I'm happy to commit a patch if you can prepare something.

[Jason Merrill]

We've had a request from someone that we include SD-6 feature testing
for gcc-4.9.
It seems rather heavy for a backport but it might make maintainers of
large C++ libraries happy ;-) and it might make sense as people migrate
from 4.9 to 5.0 to see what we've added.

I'm open to that.

Jason

[Jonathan Wakely]

The library macros are safe and can't cause any issues, so I'm happy for them to go on the branch.

I can think of at least two that aren't implemented on the branch: <experimental/any> and the std::is_final trait (although I'd be OK with the trait going on the branch too).



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Merrill" <***@redhat.com>
To: "Ed Smith-Rowland" <***@verizon.net>, "Jonathan Wakely" <***@redhat.com>
Cc: gcc-***@gcc.gnu.org, "thiago macieira" <***@intel.com>
Sent: Thursday, 2 October, 2014 4:40:03 PM
Subject: Re: feature-testing macros for 4.9

We've had a request from someone that we include SD-6 feature testing
for gcc-4.9.
It seems rather heavy for a backport but it might make maintainers of
large C++ libraries happy ;-) and it might make sense as people migrate
from 4.9 to 5.0 to see what we've added.

I'm open to that.

Jason

[Thiago Macieira]

Post by Jonathan Wakely
The library macros are safe and can't cause any issues, so I'm happy for
them to go on the branch.
<experimental/any> and the std::is_final trait (although I'd be OK with the
trait going on the branch too).

I'd also appreciate that the core language macros be defined too in 4.9. The
patch I had submitted was based on 4.9 and tried to be the least intrusive as
possible.

[Ed Smith-Rowland]

Post by Jonathan Wakely
The library macros are safe and can't cause any issues, so I'm happy for them to go on the branch.
I can think of at least two that aren't implemented on the branch: <experimental/any> and the std::is_final trait (although I'd be OK with the trait going on the branch too).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, 2 October, 2014 4:40:03 PM
Subject: Re: feature-testing macros for 4.9

We've had a request from someone that we include SD-6 feature testing
for gcc-4.9.
It seems rather heavy for a backport but it might make maintainers of
large C++ libraries happy ;-) and it might make sense as people migrate
from 4.9 to 5.0 to see what we've added.

I'm open to that.
Jason

OK,

This really does build clean and test clean on x86_64-linux.
It's basically the same as for 5.0 except experimental/any isn't in and
variable templates aren't in.

I put std::is_final into 4.9 earlier - this patch adds the macro for
that too.

I made this into a single grand unified patch this time. i didn't think
splitting it lat time bought me much.

Ed

[Jason Merrill]

Post by Ed Smith-Rowland
This really does build clean and test clean on x86_64-linux.
It's basically the same as for 5.0 except experimental/any isn't in and
variable templates aren't in.

OK.

Jason

[Ed Smith-Rowland]

Post by Jonathan Wakely

Post by Ed Smith-Rowland

Post by Jonathan Wakely

Post by Jonathan Wakely
Note Ed's recent changes. Committed to CVS.

And fix a markup error that I expected xmllint to catch :-(

Thank you! I tried to do this and couldn't for permissions. I'm
probably not doing it right.

If I remember my cvs-fu you need CVS_RHS=ssh and use
username as $USER) and then it should work over SSH just like svn and
git.

Post by Ed Smith-Rowland
Anyway, the real thing I wanted to suggest is we put a line for
C-family about the availability of __has_include and
__has_include_next. We could mention clang has it.

Good idea, I'm happy to commit a patch if you can prepare something.

OK, here is a patch for both using typename as a class key for template
template parms and for __has_include, etc.
Are these too wordy?

Ed

[Jonathan Wakely]

Post by Ed Smith-Rowland
OK, here is a patch for both using typename as a class key for
template template parms and for __has_include, etc.
Are these too wordy?

They look OK to me, although you say "__has_include_next and
__has_include_next" in both places, the first should be just
__has_include.

I can make that change and commit it, thanks.