Re: GDB BoF notes - GNU Cauldron 2023

Tom de Vries via Gdb
2023-10-05T07:09:01Z

On 9/27/23 14:41, Pedro Alves wrote:
> - Can we require C++17?
>
> Lancelot has patches for this.
>
> Looked at / discussed policy established when we migrated to C++11:
> https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/Internals%20GDB-C-Coding-Standards#When_is_GDB_going_to_start_requiring_C.2B-.2B-NN_.3F
>
> "Our general policy is to wait until the oldest compiler that
> supports C++NN is at least 3 years old."
>
> Discussion about whether the bump is problematic for current
> distros.
>
> Looked for first GCC version that claims supports C++17. In GCC 9
> release notes: "The C++17 implementation is no longer experimental."
> GCC 9.1 was released on May 3, 2019.
>
> Do we need full C++17, though? We can use language features even if
> the standard library implementation doesn't support everything.
>
> Were there actual ABI breakages between compiler releases before it
> was made non-experimental, though? AI: ask Jonathan Wakely.
>
> On whether we have easy availability of a new enough compiler in
> distros, in practice:
>
> - Tom de Vries to double check for SuSE.
>

I've double-checked, it's not a problem.

I see now that it's mentioned that Lancelot has patches, I missed that
and submitted an RFC (
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2023-October/202987.html ).

Thanks,
- Tom

> - Carlos O'Donell confirms that for RHEL we're good, because of GCC
> Toolset.
>
> - Someone should check Debian/Ubuntu and others.
>
> - BSDs tend to have easy access to recent Clang.
>
> - MinGW toolchains tend to use newer GCCs.
>