On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Joe Buck<joe.b...@synopsys.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:19:19PM -0700, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> > * Test starting the bootstrap with earlier versions of the compiler to >> > see which C++ compiler version is required, and document that. >> >> I think the right approach is not documenting observations like that, but >> investigating the causes of failures with older compilers and making it >> build with as wide a range of versions of GCC (and ideally at least one >> non-GCC C++ compiler, probably an EDG-based one such as the Intel >> compiler) as is reasonable. > > Microsoft's and Sun's compilers would be more likely to run into issues, > particularly Sun's; Sun has had a policy of preferring solid backward > compatibility to standards compliance, so I've tended to have more > problems getting correct, standard C++ to run on their compiler than on > others. This is particularly true of template-based code and nested > classes.
Yes, but I also think that we should aim for a conservative subset of C++ -- that is solid enough for the last decade. I don't pretend that is an easy task, but I believe that can only help us. -- Gaby > >
