From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 81289 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2016 21:16:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 81277 invoked by uid 89); 11 Oct 2016 21:16:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=tons, Hx-languages-length:574 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 21:16:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01D0737E64; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 21:16:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-55.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.55]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9BLGapD019277 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:16:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 21:16:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Simon Marchi Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Pedro Alves , brobecker@adacore.com, markus.t.metzger@intel.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr Message-ID: <20161011211635.GA1639@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20161011121639.GE3813@adacore.com> <68fc02cb-59bc-012c-d1be-b5ed2076d6a5@redhat.com> <20161011144741.GF3813@adacore.com> <83insydifw.fsf@gnu.org> <83a8eadds7.fsf@gnu.org> <4d49eb8f-5a0c-1e7e-d082-1a224179184f@redhat.com> <831szmd977.fsf@gnu.org> <4aba16c0ae13533cd9e93f0f2823b042@simark.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4aba16c0ae13533cd9e93f0f2823b042@simark.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2 On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 21:23:46 +0200, Simon Marchi wrote: > I don't think anybody has seriously suggested requiring C++11 any time soon, The discussion is about C++11. LLVM+LLDB have switched to C++11 in 2014 and they haven't looked back. I see the C++11 discussion pointless, where is the system which really needs GDB and which still cannot compile C++11? Why to waste manyears on bugs which can no longer exist with C++11? The discussion should be when to switch to C++17 as that removes another tons of crap like gnulib. Jan