From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29661 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2013 04:02:29 -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 29649 invoked by uid 89); 17 Dec 2013 04:02:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wi0-f178.google.com Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f178.google.com) (209.85.212.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 04:02:28 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id bz8so3079852wib.17 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:02:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.95.198 with SMTP id dm6mr10263804wjb.57.1387252945213; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:02:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.236.71 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:02:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52ADA077.7020406@tx.technion.ac.il> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 04:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [C++] System Requirements From: Ben Longbons To: Andrew Pinski Cc: Michael Veksler , GDB Development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > I think we should support anything 3.0 and above. Since we won't be > using STL or templates that much. Really? I can see quite a few cases where gdb will either have to use the STL or reinvent it; the big one is vec.h but it's far from alone. I know there are reasons to avoid or reimplement specific *parts* of the STL, but I haven't seen justification to avoid it in general. And I think that it is quite dangerous to try to support building gdb on a platform that its developers do not regularly use. gcc 4.4 is common; 4.[678] is rising, and 4.1 looks supportable, just not by me. I can't even build gcc 4.2 or earlier on any of my systems, though I admit I haven't deeply investigated what makes them different from 4.3 Anyway, this sounds like a topic for the not-yet written thread [C++] Style Guide ... the only thing I've heard is that gdb is *not* going to follow gcc, because it has different requirements, such as exceptions (which, incidentally, must happen before anything else in step 5). But back on topic ... I started this thread intending to ask "which versions of GCC do we *need* to support?", not "which versions of GCC can we afford to support?" ... I never expected anyone to defend versions before 3.4 A lower GCC version requirement means that gdb maintainers will have to spend more time trying to work around the quirks of older GCC versions and trying to badly reimplement features that are already in later GCC versions. -Ben