From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 115575 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2016 19:38:04 -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 115562 invoked by uid 89); 20 Oct 2016 19:38:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=afford, fifth, Hx-languages-length:1578, primer X-HELO: mail-qk0-f180.google.com Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-qk0-f180.google.com) (209.85.220.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:37:54 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f180.google.com with SMTP id n189so114530309qke.0 for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2YNV6K2iCZIhqk6YW4LoENQm46vJVT2LCSSYdP4DdGM=; b=gjsKM8y3aMHMzmjTl2hm42RSCAhzCtEj4tgWWw4o60kK/s54Jg/zTW1++/OCUZ0pfj GWEr6m7ME7MT+tBvbaLQaG5iKQeS43PCqo1tirh7pZabV5mpFihnxBXECdALyNSrGFt5 qeN98rgvkQjwBMBLPVR1pwMESjTJoYHfwQ7s6MZrpldk+RAWr1cHyIo1w+iY9fga1ln7 pOvnzl8bMdoAfpfrM2S9ING34b9zp9yUooxen0m6RmQVLKYYID47n5wzvUM9tIeEEbcM gFySXNGOQ9XAL39UkkpROKyfXw9X3+KS5uwgq5Ify9t6/P3qSKi0QJgcKK9B0ldQa4Go rVSg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvehjgbW/VkL5cIX+yUO0M+gBjjlCUwtCUXc8uGB4158+W9hfBDS4lNqwbsCiJy1ozb6TH1vLdjfIGHyPA== X-Received: by 10.55.192.70 with SMTP id o67mr2010168qki.164.1476992272378; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.149.168 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:37:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4300d24a-8711-c5de-79ce-7c530162288c@redhat.com> References: <4300d24a-8711-c5de-79ce-7c530162288c@redhat.com> From: Yao Qi Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: C++11 (abridged version) To: Pedro Alves Cc: GDB Patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00614.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > At this point, I find myself in an odd position --- several people > have been telling me offlist how they wanted C++11 like yesterday already. > There was support in last week's discussions as well. OTOH, I'm not > sure whether I can assume that silence on the list means "go ahead". > So I think I'll need to call a bold move and say that if there are no > actual identified blockers, or if people reply to this email with > approval, I'm going to proceed with the straw man 'path toward > C++11' proposal at > real > soon. > > [1] - most of the discussion happened in two threads here: > > - https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00223.html > - https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-10/msg00341.html 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. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)