From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 97961 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2016 12:12:19 -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 96728 invoked by uid 89); 13 Oct 2016 12:12:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:a5d6, heart 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; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:12:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (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 B75227F0A0; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:12:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9DCC2AI022251; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:12:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr To: Eli Zaretskii References: <1476117992-5689-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1476117992-5689-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <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> <83vawybol4.fsf@gnu.org> <6ba388f7-1696-42db-ae92-23df79e3ba11@redhat.com> <83oa2qaxe7.fsf@gnu.org> <83insxc3rv.fsf@gnu.org> <444c7c47-f23b-bb95-aa36-dbb1544142f3@redhat.com> <83eg3lbzgm.fsf@gnu.org> <9a13284c-21ae-981d-b746-e23d90abb5f9@redhat.com> <834m4hbxlz.fsf@gnu.org> Cc: markus.t.metzger@intel.com, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, simon.marchi@ericsson.com From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <32e74745-a5d6-e6b9-b699-d303580f2c92@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <834m4hbxlz.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00353.txt.bz2 On 10/12/2016 12:44 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: markus.t.metzger@intel.com, brobecker@adacore.com, >> gdb-patches@sourceware.org, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, >> simon.marchi@ericsson.com >> From: Pedro Alves >> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:25:21 +0100 >> >> On 10/12/2016 12:04 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, >>>> jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, simon.marchi@ericsson.com >>>> From: Pedro Alves >>>> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:11:50 +0100 >>>> >>>>> . Should we start using C++11 features in GDB? >>>> >>>> I would hope that no one would suggest that we shouldn't use >>>> C++11 features just because they like C++03 better than C++11. >>>> That would make no sense. >>> >>> It would make perfect sense if we decide to require a version of GCC >>> older than 4.8.1 as a prerequisite for building GDB. >> >> I can't see how that is a reply to what I said. I said _liking_ C++11 >> better over C++03. As in: "I'm just not going to use >> C++11 features, because I hate C++11, but C++03 is perfectly >> fine". > > That's a no-brainer, Good that you agree. > but if that was the only thing you were saying, That was not the only thing I was saying... That was preamble for the next paragraph: "In my mind, the only reason you'd not use C++11 over C++03 is simply because you couldn't because you don't have a ..." It seems like we keep talking past each other. > That decision > has IMO very little to do with whether we like C++03 more or not, > because if we go by that criterion alone, we should take Jan's > suggestion and switch to the latest version as soon as it is released, > right? Right. By that criteria, I'd switch to C++17 in a heart beat. C++17 can make C++ code look significantly simpler and clearer. Class template deduction makes me drool a bit: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/class_template_deduction Yet, I won't miss it nowhere nearly as badly as I miss C++11 features. As I've been saying, IMO it's reasonable compiler availability in distros that should matter. GCC 7, which will be the first release to fully support C++17 (or at least close enough) is not even released yet. Thanks, Pedro Alves