From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: palves@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com,
markus.t.metzger@intel.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 21:28:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3fae204de19f0105e6dcda05014ad96b@simark.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <83twcibo91.fsf@gnu.org>
On 2016-10-11 16:54, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Then why was there talk to use -std=gnu++11?
For those compilers that support C++11, but default to C++03. If the
feature is present and using it provides use with better error-checking,
why not use it?
> That's not "stick to C++03" in my book. Sticking to C++03 means not
> writing any code that requires a later standard at all.
That's your interpretation. I prefer to interpret it as compilable with
a C++03 compiler, with no significant difference in the resulting
behaviour.
> Exactly like
> we did when we required C90, but not C99: we had no code written for
> C99 compilers, #ifdef'ed away for C90 compilers. Everything was C90.
Maybe because there wasn't a need or reason to do so? In this case,
there appears to be some value doing it. Do you question the fact that
it brings value at all, or that that value is not worth the extra
complexity?
I am sure nobody wants to see the whole code base sprinkled with such
#ifs. But here it's isolated in a file that we'll almost never touch
again, and which will significantly improve the rest of the code base,
with which we work with daily.
>> The warning analogy was perhaps not clearly expressed but I think it
>> was
>> good.
>
> No, it wasn't: warnings don't affect code at all. This suggestion
> clearly will.
I made sure to point that out at the end of my paragraph, but anyway the
analogy is not the important point here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-11 21:28 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
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 [this message]
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=3fae204de19f0105e6dcda05014ad96b@simark.ca \
--to=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=markus.t.metzger@intel.com \
--cc=palves@redhat.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