From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8710 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2016 11:45:27 -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 8470 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2016 11:45:22 -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=his, our, concluded 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; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:45:21 +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 2661D9D773; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:45:20 +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 u9CBjFU3002358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:45:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:45:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 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: <20161012114515.GA26977@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <83a8eadds7.fsf@gnu.org> <4d49eb8f-5a0c-1e7e-d082-1a224179184f@redhat.com> <831szmd977.fsf@gnu.org> <83vawybol4.fsf@gnu.org> <6ba388f7-1696-42db-ae92-23df79e3ba11@redhat.com> <83oa2qaxe7.fsf@gnu.org> <83fuo1c02j.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83fuo1c02j.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:51:16 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Jan said, in full: > > > > > 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. > > > > He's saying that we should just require C++11 and be done with it. > > And then he concluded with a (hopefully tongue-in-cheek) remark about > > C++17, which (hopefully) is obvious we're not going to be requiring > > that anytime soon... > > I have no reason to be sure that was tongue-in-cheek. And I have no > reason to regard as obvious that no one will be requiring C++17 any > time soon, not without anyone, nor our coding standards, saying that. > > So from my POV, that was no straw man argument at all. Jan is one of > the more influential developers here, so his opinions certainly have a > significant weight with me. I regard things that he writes very > seriously. I really think the C++11 discussion is pointless, everything everywhere does support C++11 now. My C++17 sentence was meant seriously - but literally as it is written - that I do not expect GDB should really start requiring C++17 right now. But in a few years GDB should really start requiring C++17 as it will increase GDB's developers productivity similarly to how C++11 will/would now. Please notice C++17 is really offtopic for this mail thread now. Nowadays software is no longer distributed on floppy disks by snail mail. I do not see a reason for artificial requirements of "5 years". Fixes are being delivered by automated update systems in days and new releases with integration testing happen in months. Jan