Status of various C++0x features in Clang

Clang Frontend
1

Hello,

I have been looking over the various features on the C++0x page and I
was wondering if the list was of unimplemented items was up to date.
There are several items I might be able to do since I have a bit of
"downtime" at the moment.

Thanks in Advance,

Carter.

2

On the current page (http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html) you can read :

Last updated: $Date: 2011-04-03 09:12:46 -0500 (Sun, 03 Apr 2011) $

Last-week up-to-date.

3

I have been looking over the various features on the C++0x page and I
was wondering if the list was of unimplemented items was up to date.
There are several items I might be able to do since I have a bit of
"downtime" at the moment.

On the current page (http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html) you can read :

Last updated: $Date: 2011-04-03 09:12:46 -0500 (Sun, 03 Apr 2011) $

Last-week up-to-date.

Well yes, but in the past C++0x features have been implemented in clang
without updating the status page. And there's no guarantee that the page
is accurately reflecting clang's C++0x status now (even though it's closer
than a few weeks back). Incidentally, "local classes as template parameters"
seems to have been at least partially implemented, going from the fact that
it is possible in some cases (and not possible in others, i.e. clang crash[*]).

So Carter: I think the best would be to discuss the features you want to
implement here; others might point out which parts (or even all) have
already been done.

In any case, it is great to see further improvements on the C++0x front :slight_smile:

Jonathan

[*] I'm still working on a test case

4

Thanks for the replies. I do have one followup question. Since the
C++0x standard is still in draft form (and this might be a stupid
question), I am curious how stable various features are. I am
particularly interested in lambda expressions, uniform initializers
and the memory model(I think there was a recent CACM article that went
into some of the issues by Adve and Boehm) and perhaps template
aliases.

Regards,

Carter.

5

Carter Cheng <cartercheng-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
writes:

Thanks for the replies. I do have one followup question. Since the
C++0x standard is still in draft form (and this might be a stupid
question), I am curious how stable various features are.

The final draft is now available. Presumably there might be minor
tweaks to fix bugs but I'd guess not even that before it's finally
final.

[...]

6

Bjarne Stroustrup has a nice List of C++0x Features. He proposes an order of implementation determined by dependency and stability.
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html#order

Toralf Niebuhr

7

Bjarne Stroustrup has a nice List of C++0x Features. He proposes an order of implementation determined by dependency and stability.
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/C++0xFAQ.html#order

Toralf Niebuhr

8

Final draft is here:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3290.pdf

All of the technical work that will be done on it is done.

Howard

9

Thanks for the replies and the information.