From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 66509 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2016 10:15:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 66494 invoked by uid 89); 2 Sep 2016 10:15:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:743, brobeckeradacorecom, brobecker@adacore.com, H*i:sk:p_Y7PXP 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; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:15:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (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 BCED34E4C0; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:15:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u82AF89A028363; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 06:15:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Go C++ only To: Yao Qi , Joel Brobecker References: <212bc30a-e6ad-886b-0881-8206dd91b933@redhat.com> <20160901181739.GR4538@adacore.com> Cc: "gdb@sourceware.org" , Sergio Durigan Junior From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <3d16afa1-fba3-4543-4232-d6c952ea4556@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:15:00 -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: 2016-09/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 On 09/02/2016 11:01 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> >> I don't have a strong opinion, but can we perhaps try a compromise >> where we would be using C++ features only in new units (unlikely to be >> backported)? Even though the backporting rate is indeed probably low, >> it would still be nice to make it as easy as possible. Or is this >> not really a practical suggestion? >> > > I agree. If we think the patch is likely to be backported, such as bug fix, > C++ feature is not allowed in the patch. Agreed. Sergio, can you switch the buildbot builder that is catching C build regressions to test the 7.12 branch instead of master? Thanks, Pedro Alves