On 29 December 2014 at 15:34, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: > The note on C++14 conformance referred to is not the place for this but: is > our C++11 support really less tested and more experimental than our C++03 > support at this point? One thing I can think of might be gcc bootstrap.
The main difference is ABI stability, which is not guaranteed for C++11 (but should be once the std::string changes and resulting churn settle down). > I could be wrong but I sense the subtext of the OP is perhaps a request for > a roadmap and guidance for which C++ language version is best supported. > We can't offer a roadmap on default language until we have a big > conversation and exploration of technical issues. > > I imagine we should at least wait until C++11 ABI churn has died down. Yep, only then can we say C++11 support is not experimental, and at some point after that can discuss making -std=c++11 the default.
