Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:53:11 +0000
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 13:47, Andrei Grosu <andrei_dg_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> OK,
> First I am just arguing here for the sake of the discussion, just to make it clear.
>
> 1. One would think that reproduciblr builds are something everyone should strive for.
>
> 2. Regarding the optionally enabled stuff in the standard, there is a giant, gaping precedence for this: exceptions. RTTI can be conditionally disabled at compile time. I have a compiler flag that disables parts of the standard c++ . Why would it be oknfor exeptions/rtti but not for something like constexpr filesystem ? ( or anything else for that matter ).
Standard C++ does not allow disabling exceptions or RTTI, they are
required even for freestanding environments.
And you're not talking about a standard feature that could probably be
disabled by non-standard flags in compilers, you're suggesting it
should be off by default and enabled by a flag. That's not the same
thing as exceptions and RTTI at all.
>
> OK,
> First I am just arguing here for the sake of the discussion, just to make it clear.
>
> 1. One would think that reproduciblr builds are something everyone should strive for.
>
> 2. Regarding the optionally enabled stuff in the standard, there is a giant, gaping precedence for this: exceptions. RTTI can be conditionally disabled at compile time. I have a compiler flag that disables parts of the standard c++ . Why would it be oknfor exeptions/rtti but not for something like constexpr filesystem ? ( or anything else for that matter ).
Standard C++ does not allow disabling exceptions or RTTI, they are
required even for freestanding environments.
And you're not talking about a standard feature that could probably be
disabled by non-standard flags in compilers, you're suggesting it
should be off by default and enabled by a flag. That's not the same
thing as exceptions and RTTI at all.
Received on 2024-03-12 13:54:28