Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 10/12/2016 07:34 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>> Eli, I've repeatedly told you that that's completely false.  No one
>> is suggesting that.
> 
> Jan just did.  

No he didn't.  That's another straw man argument.

Jan said, in full:

> The discussion is about C++11.  LLVM+LLDB have switched to C++11 in 2014 and
> they haven't looked back.
> 
> I see the C++11 discussion pointless, where is the system which really needs
> GDB and which still cannot compile C++11?  Why to waste manyears on bugs which
> can no longer exist with C++11?
> 
> The discussion should be when to switch to C++17 as that removes another tons
> of crap like gnulib.

He's saying that we should just require C++11 and be done with it.
And then he concluded with a (hopefully tongue-in-cheek) remark about
C++17, which (hopefully) is obvious we're not going to be requiring
that anytime soon...

Fact: Nowhere did he say that we will now require GCC 6.1.

Requiring C++11 would mean requiring GCC around 4.8, NOT GCC 6.1.

> So "completely false" is completely false. 

You're repeated claims that people are suggesting to require
GCC 6.1 are provably false.

In any case, Jan's reply came after all our discussions, and I'm
not Jan.  If someone comes in and suggests to actually require GCC 6.1,
then I'll stop saying that nobody is suggesting that, and instead say
that I'd strongly object it.

> And what
> you are suggesting, while not as radical as what Jan says, will still
> get us there soon enough.

There's no Trojan here.  If you don't trust me, then I don't know
what else I can do...

>> At this point I have to wonder whether you're not listening on
>> purpose.
> 
> This goes both ways, you know.  And I hope you understand how it could
> be an insult when actually written in a discussion.  

I did not mean it as an insult.  I apologize if it sounded that way.
And conversely, I hope you understand how repeated straw man
arguments even after they're categorically dismissed could be
taken as an insult.

> Why do we need to get to this level each time I happen to disagree with something here?
> It's the reason why I speak so little here about my opinions on the
> various matters.

I don't know.  IMO, it would have helped a lot if the discussion
would have not had so many straw man arguments thrown my way.

Can we please redirect all this energy to actual technical
discussions, please?  Does anyone want to comment on the
the patch itself and on the smart pointer design?

Thanks,
Pedro Alves