From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 116754 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2016 22:34:32 -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 116742 invoked by uid 89); 19 Oct 2016 22:34:31 -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=sake, anyones, anyone's, Hx-languages-length:1711 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; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:34:21 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (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 50A758553E; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9JMYF2t022278; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:34:18 -0400 Subject: Re: Go C++11? To: Luis Machado , Eli Zaretskii References: <1474949330-4307-1-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> <1474949330-4307-10-git-send-email-tom@tromey.com> <2f79a489b9090701f15fc04e0017c236@simark.ca> <87y41xd0dt.fsf@tromey.com> <1f5898b8-6be9-48e6-4312-72ec90e7810e@redhat.com> <87insxmbnd.fsf@tromey.com> <2855e2ec-46dc-71b7-9943-8edaebcbef90@redhat.com> <8337k0aicw.fsf@gnu.org> <6f27db2e-4b88-b72a-5836-080c3583eb7f@redhat.com> <83r37k8ifg.fsf@gnu.org> <83lgxs8fyj.fsf@gnu.org> <9d9dca17-56a6-6c0a-44bb-efc425f24d8d@redhat.com> <83k2dc8ef4.fsf@gnu.org> <685ed94c-fd1b-6b0a-4fe0-0418966b184f@redhat.com> <072d729d-8e32-024e-4aab-09f6b4d5e3d9@redhat.com> <051716de-e27f-9798-e376-b6b0888159b9@codesourcery.com> Cc: tom@tromey.com, simon.marchi@polymtl.ca, gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <999591f8-1a2f-ee4d-38da-585e15a4daa0@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:34:00 -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: <051716de-e27f-9798-e376-b6b0888159b9@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00589.txt.bz2 On 10/19/2016 07:02 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > On 10/17/2016 06:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Sooo.... Shall we proceed with the straw man proposal and >> apply the patches at [2] (enable -std=gnu+11 on gcc >= 4.8)? >> >> [1] - https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00496.html >> [2] - https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00336.html >> >> Do people feel this hasn't been sufficiently discussed? >> >> If we can do this now, I'll happily drop my shim in favor of >> jumping to C++11 quicker! Maybe it'll find a home in gcc. :-) >> >> I'd love to hear feedback. > > I personally feel this hasn't been discussed much, but honestly it > doesn't feel like discussion is going to change anything here other than > create clashes of ideas. :-) :-) Right, discussion just for the sake of it is not in anyone's interests, IMO. AFAIK, all blockers that _I_ thought existed either don't actually exist or have been resolved. If there are specific, actual blockers, we should certainly discuss those. > > I've seen this go from "You got it wrong. We're not going to move to > C++11" to "So, shall we move now?" rather quickly. To be clear, the original message, which is still true was: The gdb::unique_ptr patch does _not_ make us require C++11. > Nothing showed up in gdb@ either. > Since we're already moving things quickly, we should probably discuss a > policy to accept the next standard version and follow that from now on. IMO such a discussion doesn't have to block starting to require C++11, and can happen in parallel, since for sure we're not going to start thinking about requiring C++14 right now. In any case, Eli has suggested a policy. Thanks, Pedro Alves