Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72

Thread: LLVM's Clang Compiler Is Now C++11 Feature Complete

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    For example: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...2008/n2670.htm

    It seems like they have standardized something unfinished. It should be implement than standardize.
    On the other hand they say minimal implementation is trivial:
    Implement first and then standardization is called a late standardization and that is how LSB works. Compiler standardization doesn't work like that.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Implement first and then standardization is called a late standardization and that is how LSB works. Compiler standardization doesn't work like that.
    It did on start. C was being implemented from 1969 and standardized in 1990.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    It did on start. C was being implemented from 1969 and standardized in 1990.
    You are confusing two very different things here. C, C++ etc had no standards at all initially. Some popular compiler extensions have been standardized because they got adopted by other compilers but once the standardization process starts, a specification comes with a prototype implementation but the final implementation is done after the full standard is published. This is the only feasible way to implement a language standard with multiple competing implementations.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artivision View Post
    That multi-tread model that some of you describe doesn't exist. For example, a video encoding program can have 1000 threads for a movie. That's because a movie has a key-frame every 6 second and the next frames are depend on that frame. So 6000 seconds=1000 maximum possible threads. Cannot have 2000 threads even if "God" wants to. An office program cannot have more than two threads for the same reason. You have a program with if/else, first goes the one and only then the other. You have two equations, you cannot run them in parallel because the outcome of the first is a variable of the second, so you must have the first finished. Programming language has nothing to do with paralelization. And those helpers cannot do magically the job.
    Thats not a problem with the threading model, just the data you are working on. Two different issues.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    You are confusing two very different things here. C, C++ etc had no standards at all initially. Some popular compiler extensions have been standardized because they got adopted by other compilers but once the standardization process starts, a specification comes with a prototype implementation but the final implementation is done after the full standard is published. This is the only feasible way to implement a language standard with multiple competing implementations.
    Prototype implementation is fine.
    So they saw problems and ignore them?
    They could wait until next revision.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Prototype implementation is fine.
    So they saw problems and ignore them?
    They could wait until next revision.
    I gave you a reference which shows the details. If you bothered to read, you would know that the issues didn't come up in the prototype implemention and moreover it isn't a major feature at all. So I don't see why you anyone should care.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    I gave you a reference which shows the details. If you bothered to read, you would know that the issues didn't come up in the prototype implemention and moreover it isn't a major feature at all. So I don't see why you anyone should care.
    That means prototype implementation was too incomplete.
    I don't really care, but C++ programers should care since it is standard not a recommendation.
    If it is so unimportant feature, why standardize it?

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    That means prototype implementation was too incomplete.
    I don't really care, but C++ programers should care since it is standard not a recommendation.
    If it is so unimportant feature, why standardize it?
    No, it doesn't mean that at all and you would have known that had you read the reference and understood it. Why should C++ programmers care when no compiler implements it? If it was implemented, it might have an useful feature. Now that noone is implementing it, the next revision might deprecate it. Thats how standardization works.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    No, it doesn't mean that at all and you would have known that had you read the reference and understood it. Why should C++ programmers care when no compiler implements it? If it was implemented, it might have an useful feature. Now that noone is implementing it, the next revision might deprecate it. Thats how standardization works.
    And than we are surprised why standards are not respected.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    And than we are surprised why standards are not respected.
    All major compilers have implemented all the major features. Looks like they are respected just fine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •