From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 43020 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2016 11:25:36 -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 43003 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2016 11:25:35 -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=H*M:b746, Hx-languages-length:883, perfect 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, 12 Oct 2016 11:25:25 +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 3FFBF8124B; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:25:24 +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 u9CBPL47013040; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:25:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr 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> Cc: markus.t.metzger@intel.com, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, simon.marchi@ericsson.com From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <9a13284c-21ae-981d-b746-e23d90abb5f9@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:25:00 -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: <83eg3lbzgm.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 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". I wouldn't find such position reasonable. Thanks, Pedro Alves