From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7231 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2016 11:45:00 -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 7211 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2016 11:44:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1489, relate X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (208.118.235.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:44:49 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buHxm-0005eH-IK for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:44:47 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54346) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buHxe-0005cZ-1c; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:44:38 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2864 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1buHxb-0000dy-W9; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:44:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:45:00 -0000 Message-Id: <834m4hbxlz.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: markus.t.metzger@intel.com, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, simon.marchi@ericsson.com In-reply-to: <9a13284c-21ae-981d-b746-e23d90abb5f9@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:25:21 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr Reply-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> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00304.txt.bz2 > 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, but if that was the only thing you were saying, then how does it relate to the issue to which you responded, i.e. whether we should decide to start using C++11 now? 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?