From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129694 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2016 11:43:13 -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 129617 invoked by uid 89); 11 Oct 2016 11:43:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=perception, GCCs, love, hear 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 11:43:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (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 0B5F4935A7; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:43:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9BBh9he021788; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 07:43:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr To: "Metzger, Markus T" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <1476117992-5689-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1476117992-5689-2-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <3cd38c85-fa55-35b5-8f3a-293ba7df82c9@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:43:00 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 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