Re: Go C++11?

Pedro Alves
2016-10-19T22:34:32Z

On 10/19/2016 07:02 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 06:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:

>> Sooo.... Shall we proceed with the straw man proposal and
>> apply the patches at [2] (enable -std=gnu+11 on gcc >= 4.8)?
>>
>> [1] - https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00496.html
>> [2] - https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00336.html
>>
>> Do people feel this hasn't been sufficiently discussed?
>>
>> If we can do this now, I'll happily drop my shim in favor of
>> jumping to C++11 quicker! Maybe it'll find a home in gcc. :-)
>>
>> I'd love to hear feedback.
>
> I personally feel this hasn't been discussed much, but honestly it
> doesn't feel like discussion is going to change anything here other than
> create clashes of ideas. :-)

:-)

Right, discussion just for the sake of it is not in anyone's interests, IMO.

AFAIK, all blockers that _I_ thought existed either don't actually
exist or have been resolved.

If there are specific, actual blockers, we should certainly discuss those.

>
> I've seen this go from "You got it wrong. We're not going to move to
> C++11" to "So, shall we move now?" rather quickly.

To be clear, the original message, which is still true was:

The gdb::unique_ptr patch does _not_ make us require C++11.

> Nothing showed up in gdb@ either.
> Since we're already moving things quickly, we should probably discuss a
> policy to accept the next standard version and follow that from now on.

IMO such a discussion doesn't have to block starting to require C++11,
and can happen in parallel, since for sure we're not going to start
thinking about requiring C++14 right now.

In any case, Eli has suggested a policy.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves