Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4F31592E.50102@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:02:38 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Retirement of stdcxx to the 'Attic'?
References: <4F2AC1FE.3040604@rowe-clan.net>,<4F2C36AD.1010805@apache.org>
 <DEE44AFE682197449410588EB783A5142E48235D6D@BUNGLE.Emea.Arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <DEE44AFE682197449410588EB783A5142E48235D6D@BUNGLE.Emea.Arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/5/2012 10:36 AM, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> -1
> 
> This is partially because stdcxx is still considered to be a derivate
> implementation of RogueWave in ARM toolchain, so upgrading at some
> point would have had a smaller impact on our customers than porting
> the toolchain into another library, apart from that I think this means
> that we will have yet smaller choice of C++ libraries avaiable - even
> if they are a bit outdated.
> 
> Therefore -1.

You trimmed the vote thread... can we presume you are willing to be
active in the project?

> PS: I still have some pending patches to port it to ARM Compiler, if
> somebody would be happy to review it/commit it I would be happy to
> follow up - Martin was looking, but we both stuck at some point with
> having not enough time to do it. Now, as how the things stands I think
> they should be pushed.

It's necessary to push these at the bug tracker or the dev@ list.  One
problem is that if you push it to an individual (e.g. Martin) then there
is no chance the community can help take up the slack when that individual
gets busy.