On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 03:17:07PM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote: > > Whether to call C++20 as non-experimental except e.g. for modules and still > > say modules are experimental and need -fmodules option is a question (after > > all, I think we don't implement P1815R2 paper nor private module fragments > > and maybe something else too). > > Sounds like modules are still experimental.
Yeah, so probably the one liner in the description should stay that modules are experimental and invoke.texi should be more verbose on that (that it is also not on by default and -fmodules needs to be requested). > > 2025-11-15 Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]> > > You can mention > > PR c++/113920 > > here if you want. Ok. > > --- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/pr94459.C.jj 2020-04-05 00:27:46.554215583 > > +0200 > > +++ gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/debug/pr94459.C 2025-11-15 22:25:24.364486317 > > +0100 > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > > // PR debug/94459 > > // { dg-do compile { target c++14 } } > > -// { dg-options "-g -dA" } > > +// { dg-options "-g -dA -std=gnu++17" } > > Does this change make sense, given the dg-do compile above? Clearly it does work, as debug.exp doesn't cycle over C++ versions but over various different debug options. The c++14 effective target isn't that important, but if it stays, it documents the test needs at least C++14. Could be also { target { c++14 && c++17_down } } but we'd still need -std=gnu++17 explicitly to fix the test. Jakub
