Re: C++11 (abridged version)

[Kevin Buettner <kevin@buettner.to>]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 18:07:58 +0100
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:

> My opinion on #3 (should we require C++11 now), is yes.  C++11 is a
> great step up from C++03, and being able to use it fully would result
> in a more efficiency gdb, and would also allow simplifying things that
> require ugly workarounds in C++03.  I.e., if you hate C++ and you think
> it's messy, it may actually be that what you hate is C++03, and that you'd
> actually like C++11 if you give it a chance.  E.g., rvalue references, efficient
> move-aware containers (also allowing us to make containers "own" the containing
> objects, resulting in even simpler code), template aliases, variadic templates,
> etc. etc.  C++11 would avoid having to consider reimplementing basic utilities
> like e.g., a type-safe hash table.  C++11 is also a _simpler_ language in a way,
> as some ugly warts have been ironed out in the language (e.g., std::string
> and contiguous buffer guarantees).

While I claim no deep understanding of C++ (any version), I find this
point compelling.  Therefore, I'm in favor of requiring C++11 for
building GDB.

Kevin