From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: "Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>,
"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:43:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3cd38c85-fa55-35b5-8f3a-293ba7df82c9@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A78C989F6D9628469189715575E55B233FFE494E@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 10/11/2016 12:16 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> Wow, that was a long reply to such a small question. I was mainly
> wondering if it makes sense to write (and maintain) ones own version
> of a standard library feature.
>
> The big step was not supporting C any longer. Requiring C++11 looks
> small, by comparison.
Agreed, from language perspective. The question is one of _compiler_ access
and convenience. But it looks like I might have been wrong in my previous
perception that dropping support for older GCCs would be unrealistic at
this point. I'd love to hear other's opinions.
> BTW, I noticed that maintainers seem very busy these days and patches
> are waiting unusually long for review.
Yeah. Myself, I don't really know nowadays what it means to not be very busy, and
also getting the 7.12 release/branch ready took me significant effort. Over the
past few releases, I've been considering whether an explicit "bugfixes/regressions
only" state, like gcc's stages would help -- because what happens is that
people send in patches for master and the pings and if they're not following
development closely, they won't realize the reason people are not
looking at their patches is the focus on the release, and everyone is
frustrated. At least I am.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-11 11:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-10 16:46 [PATCH 0/3] More cleanup elimination / gdb::unique_ptr Pedro Alves
2016-10-10 16:46 ` [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr Pedro Alves
2016-10-10 17:49 ` Simon Marchi
2016-10-10 18:03 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-11 6:48 ` Metzger, Markus T
2016-10-11 10:23 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-11 10:53 ` Andreas Schwab
2016-10-11 11:17 ` Metzger, Markus T
2016-10-11 11:43 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2016-10-11 13:58 ` Yao Qi
2016-10-11 14:05 ` Trevor Saunders
2016-10-11 12:16 ` Joel Brobecker
2016-10-11 13:46 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-11 14:47 ` Joel Brobecker
2016-10-11 15:17 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-11 16:24 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-11 16:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-11 17:41 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-11 18:37 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-11 19:19 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-11 20:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-11 21:32 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-12 6:34 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-12 8:11 ` Metzger, Markus T
2016-10-12 9:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-12 10:12 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-12 11:05 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-12 11:25 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-12 11:45 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-13 12:12 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-12 10:28 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-12 11:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-12 11:19 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-12 11:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-12 11:55 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-13 0:38 ` [PATCH] Enable C++11 starting with gcc 4.8 (was: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr) Pedro Alves
2016-10-13 0:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] gdb: Import AX_CXX_COMPILE_STDCXX from the GNU Autoconf Archive Pedro Alves
2016-10-13 0:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] gdb: Enable C++11 if available Pedro Alves
2016-10-12 9:37 ` [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr Pedro Alves
2016-10-12 10:51 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-12 11:15 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-12 11:40 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-12 11:45 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-12 11:56 ` Luis Machado
2016-10-12 12:03 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-13 9:07 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-13 10:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-13 10:27 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-13 13:22 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-13 13:36 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-13 13:59 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-13 14:04 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-13 15:06 ` Joel Brobecker
2016-10-13 10:46 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-13 11:15 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-13 13:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-13 13:42 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-13 14:07 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-11 19:23 ` Simon Marchi
2016-10-11 20:54 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-11 21:28 ` Simon Marchi
2016-10-12 6:23 ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-11 21:16 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-11 17:15 ` Luis Machado
2016-10-11 18:21 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-10 16:46 ` [PATCH 3/3] 'struct parse_expression *' -> gdb::unique_ptr<expression> Pedro Alves
2016-10-10 16:58 ` [PATCH 0/3] More cleanup elimination / gdb::unique_ptr Pedro Alves
2016-10-16 7:05 ` Tom Tromey
2016-10-17 13:57 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-17 14:07 ` Tom Tromey
2016-10-17 14:59 ` Pedro Alves
2016-10-20 13:46 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3cd38c85-fa55-35b5-8f3a-293ba7df82c9@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=markus.t.metzger@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox