From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67994 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2016 06:34:53 -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 67984 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2016 06:34:52 -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=regulations, enjoy, assured, face 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 06:34:42 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buD7c-0005qZ-N5 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 02:34:40 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:50349) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1buD7c-0005qJ-KZ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 02:34:36 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2388 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1buD7b-00087C-MU; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 02:34:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:34:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83oa2qaxe7.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Pedro Alves CC: brobecker@adacore.com, markus.t.metzger@intel.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <6ba388f7-1696-42db-ae92-23df79e3ba11@redhat.com> (message from Pedro Alves on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:32:09 +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> 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/msg00286.txt.bz2 > Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, markus.t.metzger@intel.com, > gdb-patches@sourceware.org > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:32:09 +0100 > > As Simon said, this is just like making use of some gnulib module > to make up for some missing bit in the system's C runtime. A new version of a language is entirely different from a missing library function. > I fail to see the worry here. It's not like I'm proposing to only > enable some user-visible feature if GDB is built with some compiler > versions. Rest assured, very soon we will. It's not that different from what you are suggesting now, so once allowed, we will have no good arguments to disallow that in the future, including when it affects user-visible features. Someone will come up and say "how is that different from having features on GNU/Linux that are not available on other OSes?" And we will have no good answer for them. The _only_ good answer in these cases is the established coding standards and project-wide regulations. Nothing else stands in the face of the "why not?" arguments. > > I'm still arguing because you all but decided to declare that to enjoy > > GDB to its fullest one has from now on to have GCC 6.x. GCC 6.1 was > > released just this April, so it sounds too drastic to require it only > > a few months later. > > Eli, I've repeatedly told you that that's completely false. No one > is suggesting that. Jan just did. So "completely false" is completely false. And what you are suggesting, while not as radical as what Jan says, will still get us there soon enough. > At this point I have to wonder whether you're not listening on > purpose. This goes both ways, you know. And I hope you understand how it could be an insult when actually written in a discussion. Why do we need to get to this level each time I happen to disagree with something here? It's the reason why I speak so little here about my opinions on the various matters.