From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19594 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2016 19:09:23 -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 19579 invoked by uid 89); 20 Oct 2016 19:09:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=risk, policy, our, concluded 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, 20 Oct 2016 19:09:21 +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 9492012B8; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:09:20 +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 u9KJ9Ipd018502; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:09:19 -0400 Subject: Re: C++11 (abridged version) To: Eli Zaretskii References: <4300d24a-8711-c5de-79ce-7c530162288c@redhat.com> <83d1iuu9i0.fsf@gnu.org> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <73e72f21-8acf-1332-08f3-c2c92448c7b8@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:09:00 -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: <83d1iuu9i0.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00612.txt.bz2 On 10/20/2016 08:05 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Pedro Alves >> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 18:07:58 +0100 >> >> On #4 (policy for newer standard versions), as I've been saying many >> times in the past week, I think that what matters is whether there's >> reasonably widespread compiler availability, meaning the latest stable >> releases of distributions include a compiler for the standard, or it's >> easy to get one by installing some optional package. If reasonably >> available, then we should switch, and take advantage of the great work >> our compiler and standards friends have been doing. > > IMO, this is too vague for a policy. I proposed a much more > quantitative criterion, one that doesn't run the risk of triggering > long disputes with no clear-cut ways of making a decision. I'm okay > with other criteria, as long as they are clear, easily applied, and > don't require subjective interpretation. Agreed. That's why I concluded with: ~~~~ Going forward past C++11, since "reasonable availability" is not quantifiable, Eli suggested the policy of "(...) waiting until the oldest compiler which supports that newer standard is at least 3 years old (like GCC 4.8.1 is today)." And I agree with that. (I'd prefix it with "at least".) ~~~~ I hope to have not misquoted you. If I have, I apologize. Thanks, Pedro Alves