generic-library/cxx
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Change C++0x references to C++11, Fixes bug #12745

Browse Source 
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk@167930 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
Marshall Clow 2012-11-14 16:31:15 +00:00
parent 0919dbaab3
commit faa17162e9
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
www/index.html
View File

@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
</ul>
<!--=====================================================================-->
<h2 id="why">Why a new C++ Standard Library for C++'0x?</h2>
<h2 id="why">Why a new C++ Standard Library for C++11?</h2>
<!--=====================================================================-->
<p>After its initial introduction, many people have asked "why start a new
@ -72,14 +72,14 @@
to how they are implemented. For example, it is generally accepted that
building std::string using the "short string optimization" instead of
using Copy On Write (COW) is a superior approach for multicore
machines (particularly in C++'0x, which has rvalue references). Breaking
machines (particularly in C++11, which has rvalue references). Breaking
ABI compatibility with old versions of the library was
determined to be critical to achieving the performance goals of
libc++.</p></li>
<li><p>Mainline libstdc++ has switched to GPL3, a license which the developers
of libc++ cannot use. libstdc++ 4.2 (the last GPL2 version) could be
independently extended to support C++'0x, but this would be a fork of the
independently extended to support C++11, but this would be a fork of the
codebase (which is often seen as worse for a project than starting a new
independent one). Another problem with libstdc++ is that it is tightly
integrated with G++ development, tending to be tied fairly closely to the
@ -87,7 +87,7 @@
</li>
<li><p>STLport and the Apache libstdcxx library are two other popular
candidates, but both lack C++'0x support. Our experience (and the
candidates, but both lack C++11 support. Our experience (and the
experience of libstdc++ developers) is that adding support for C++11 (in
particular rvalue references and move-only types) requires changes to
almost every class and function, essentially amounting to a rewrite.