From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 87626 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2016 20:47:26 -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 87616 invoked by uid 89); 11 Oct 2016 20:47:25 -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=April, enjoy, love, learn 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; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:47:24 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bu3xH-00031C-2Y for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:47:22 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43230) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bu3xG-00030b-VL; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:47:18 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1966 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bu3xF-00051N-11; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:47:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:47:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83vawybol4.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: (message from Pedro Alves on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:19:14 +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> 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/msg00277.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:19:14 +0100 > > > Where are the rules and decisions that we won't? > > What sort of rules are you expecting? What is the oldest version of GCC and C/C++ we are willing to support, and how many months/years from now we plan to reconsider that, for example. > >>> If you suddenly require 6.x or 7.x, they will have no choice. > >> > >> Well, that's (an unintended, no doubt) strawman, because no one is > >> suggesting that. > > > > That's not how I read your messages. Apologies for my > > misunderstanding, but I can show you how your words actually made that > > sound as if you were. > > Please do. I'd love to learn to be clearer. Joel: > Agreed. Mostly, I was thinking of seeing if we can avoid the requirement > to build a GCC first, if all you are interested in is actually building > GDB. But, if C++11 is a much cleaner language overall, and its runtime > provides some nice additions, I think it makes better sense technically > to align ourselves to it. We've already made a huge requirement jump; > let's just do it right all the way. That increment doesn't seem all > that significant compared to requiring a C++ compiler. You: > It's just that gcc 6.x is the first version that has switched > the _default_ mode for C++ to -std=gnu++14. So until someone writes a > patch that make gdb's build system enable C++11 support with gcc < 6, > then the C++11-only code in the gdb::unique_ptr patch that I'm proposing > will only be active with gcc 6.1 onward. But really I'm not > proposing to _require_ 6.x at all. > You yourself said that you have gcc 5.x available. I don't really > understand why we're still arguing about this. 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.