Hello
Is there any progress or start yet in implemententing export for C++ templates ?
A search in the mailing list archive shows the last time the issue was
discussed was in 2006.
Why is everybody such not interested in this ? It would be such a
great feature, especially for
a leading C++ implem
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Michael Witten
[...]
> However, I have a gut feeling that at least a restricted version of
> 'export' (or a cousin of 'export') could be both useful and trivial to
> implement: [...]
>
Those were my thoughts too.
Since such a change must happen in small steps, I w
On 25.01.2010 20:12, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Timothy Madden writes:
[...]
g++ is free software. A clean implementation of export would
certainly be accepted. All it takes is for somebody to write one.
Hello
Is that statement above still true please ?
I know export is now to be made depr
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
> On 25.01.2010 20:12, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Timothy Madden writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> g++ is free software. A clean implementation of export would
>> certainly be accepted. All it takes is for somebody to write one.
>
>
> Hello
>
>
Timothy Madden writes:
> Is there any progress or start yet in implemententing export for C++
> templates ?
Not to my knowledge.
The C++0x standards committee considered deprecating export for C++0x,
but I think they have decided to retain it for now.
> Why is everybody such not interested i
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Timothy Madden writes:
>
>> Is there any progress or start yet in implemententing export for C++
>> templates ?
>
> Not to my knowledge.
>
> The C++0x standards committee considered deprecating export for C++0x,
> but I think they have d
Timothy Madden writes:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Timothy Madden writes:
>>
>>> Why is it so hard to store template definitions (and the set of
>>> symbols visible to them) in an
>>> object file, probably as a representation of the parsed template source
>>>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Timothy Madden writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Timothy Madden writes:
>>>
Why is it so hard to store template definitions (and the set of
symbols visible to them) in an
object fil
Timothy Madden writes:
> How long would it take for someone to understand how parsing works in
> g++ ? Or to understand the build system in gcc ?
I don't think you need to understand the build system to implement
export in C++. You do clearly need to understand the g++ frontend.
However, it's i
On 01/30/2010 01:14 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I don't think you need to understand the build system to implement
> export in C++. You do clearly need to understand the g++ frontend.
> However, it's impossible for me to estimate how long it would take
> somebody to understand it. It would depe
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Even for implementors knowing *very* well both the details of the C++
> standard and the internals of a specific front-end, implementing export
> is an *highly* non-trivial task.
However, I have a gut feeling that at least a restricted versi
Paolo Carlini writes:
> On 01/30/2010 01:14 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I don't think you need to understand the build system to implement
>> export in C++. You do clearly need to understand the g++ frontend.
>> However, it's impossible for me to estimate how long it would take
>> somebody to
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 06:23:45PM -0800, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
> > Even for implementors knowing *very* well both the details of the C++
> > standard and the internals of a specific front-end, implementing export
> > is an *highly* non-tr
Hi
I already tried to tell him that upthread.
Sorry about that, last night was tired and didn't follow the whole
thread.
Anyway, modulo a possible deprecation (I believe M$ through Herb is
still pushing for it) I think the slightly more serious side of this
export thing is something Ma
Paolo Carlini writes:
> Anyway, modulo a possible deprecation (I believe M$ through Herb is
> still pushing for it) I think the slightly more serious side of this
> export thing is something Mark, if I'm not mistaken, said some time
> ago, at the very beginning of the Lto ideas, to the effect th
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 01:47:03AM +0200, Timothy Madden wrote:
> So nobody here wants to try a big thing ? :(
This question strikes me as being not very fair because many GCC people
are already pretty much involved. Would you fancy giving a hand?
> How long would it take for someone to understa
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
[...]
> Even for implementors knowing *very* well both the details of the C++
> standard and the internals of a specific front-end, implementing export
> is an *highly* non-trivial task. [...]
Yes, everyone is telling me that, but could someon
On 02/01/2010 01:26 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
> Since such a change must happen in small steps, I would be interested
> to know how 'acceptable' would a limited implementation be at first ?
> Like the command line options I have seen declared 'experimental' in
> the gcc manual before ...
>
As I
Timothy Madden writes:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
> [...]
>> Even for implementors knowing *very* well both the details of the C++
>> standard and the internals of a specific front-end, implementing export
>> is an *highly* non-trivial task. [...]
>
> Yes, everyon
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> it's extremely
> unlikely that the C++ front-end maintainers could even consider
> reviewing patches from a novice for such an hard to implement feature.
That says more about the tangled mess that is gcc then about any
particular programmer'
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:38 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 02/01/2010 01:26 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
[...]
> As I see the issue, you should first check over the next months that the
> feature is not deprecated by ISO.
I know, I tried to talk about it on std.c++. I am afraid I can not see
a consens
> I see that what I need is an assignment for all future changes. If my
> employer is not involved with any contributions of mine, the employer
> disclaimer is not needed, right ?
It's safest to have it. The best way to prove that your employer is
not involved with any contributions of yours is w
On 2/2/10 7:19 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I see that what I need is an assignment for all future changes. If my
employer is not involved with any contributions of mine, the employer
disclaimer is not needed, right ?
It's safest to have it. The best way to prove that your employer is
not in
On 02/02/2010 05:04 AM, Michael Witten wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
it's extremely unlikely that the C++ front-end maintainers could
even consider reviewing patches from a novice for such an hard to
implement feature.
That says more about the tangled mess th
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
>> I see that what I need is an assignment for all future changes. If my
>> employer is not involved with any contributions of mine, the employer
>> disclaimer is not needed, right ?
>
> It's safest to have it. The best way to prove that your
Timothy Madden writes:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Richard Kenner
> wrote:
>>> I see that what I need is an assignment for all future changes. If my
>>> employer is not involved with any contributions of mine, the employer
>>> disclaimer is not needed, right ?
>>
>> It's safest to have it.
> I do not know the correct wording in English for this but I am legally
> licensed as an individual to offer software consulting services and to
> develop software.
>
> So the so-called employer is really my client, with whom I have signed
> a contract for consulting services.
If you have exactl
> It depends on who owns the code that you write. If you own the code,
> then you need to sign papers as an individual contributor.
I don't think it's that simple. "who owns the code" is not always clear.
There's often a question of who that is. That's why if somebody HAS
an employer we usually
Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 01:47:03AM +0200, Timothy Madden wrote:
>
>> So nobody here wants to try a big thing ? :(
>>
>
> This question strikes me as being not very fair because many GCC people
> are already pretty much involved. Would you fancy giving a hand?
>
>
29 matches
Mail list logo
