Re: C++20 and gcc12/10

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:

> ok then, so what should the FEATURE be called? c++20-gcc10? c++20-lite?

I think we first need to fix the problem that c++NN does not mean "full
compliance with the standard".   Then I think it makes sense to have

  c++20-gcc10  # because that's what we actually care about
  c++20-foo    # for the foo features *required by c++20, not in gcc10
  c++20-bar    # for the bar features *required by c++20, not in gcc10

documented in such a way that c++20-{gcc10,foo,bar} is equivalent in
features to c++20.   Strictly, c++20-gcc10 means "the program needs
c++20 (can acccept --std=c++20 and mostly implements the language) but
only needs the subset implemented by gcc10".

One could add this for clang also, but it's interesting that's not an
issue.  Perhaps because we aren't trying to support systems with old
clang in base, and perhaps because clang's approach raises fewer
issues.


Calling it lite is the same semantics, but for N compiler/versions there
are N flavors of lite.   So no.