From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22926 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2016 19:45:17 -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 22372 invoked by uid 89); 20 Oct 2016 19:45:05 -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=plant, desk, afford, fifth 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; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:45:04 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (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 CA93A1556C; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:45:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9KJj0Yc030240; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:45:01 -0400 Subject: Re: C++11 (abridged version) To: Yao Qi References: <4300d24a-8711-c5de-79ce-7c530162288c@redhat.com> Cc: GDB Patches From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <9bee3c7f-092b-68ec-fd3f-093ae0b03365@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:45:00 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00617.txt.bz2 On 10/20/2016 08:37 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > Hi Pedro, > I kept silence on the discussion in the past several weeks, because > I don't know much on C++. I can't think of any reason we should > block C++ 11 transition. I've got "C++ Primer, fifth edition" on my > desk. It covers C++ 11 :) > > It is a right thing to move to C++ 11. However, we need to think > about the priority of each work. We still have bugs to fix, new features > to add, patches to review. They are very important in the short term, > next release, for example. We can't afford several months doing code > conversion without any real development and bug fixes. Code > conversion should be a background task, running along with development > and bug fixes for some years. Definitely agreed. Myself I've been spending more time on it than I can really afford. My idea in the past weeks was to plant the seed for others to come in and help (e.g., the std::string patches and the gdb::unique_ptr patches). I had no idea getting that done would take this long... Thanks, Pedro Alves