From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9578 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2013 20:09:37 -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 9567 invoked by uid 89); 16 Dec 2013 20:09:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wg0-f51.google.com Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:09:35 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b13so5031291wgh.6 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:09:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.181.12.71 with SMTP id eo7mr15018905wid.28.1387224571695; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:09:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.236.71 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:09:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83wqj4d33e.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20131215153129.GA27931@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83wqj4d33e.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [C++] System Requirements From: Ben Longbons To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00036.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Perhaps you never tried to use outdated versions of GDB too seriously > for too long. GDB constantly gets more and more useful features and > solves more and more bugs, so using an old version is a PITA. Well, I can state with absolute certainty that there are *some* bugs in gdb that simply will not be fixed without relying on some subset of C++11 features. It's not that they couldn't theoretically be fixed otherwise, they just wouldn't be detected. For a while I had to maintain two branches of my own software, and I remember specifically backporting one fix to the pre-C++11 stable branch for a problem that many users had noticed, but which eluded bughunts until I used some C++11 stuff. In some cases it is possible to hide the feature behind the development mode check, in some cases it is not. GCC 4.3 and 4.4 introduce a lot of features that can't be used conditionally. > It's > not like GDB development aims only at supporting newer compiler > versions, you know. Just look at the commit logs, and you will see. I haven't been able to get the specific information I looked for as to exactly which versions *are* supported and which have been for previous releases. >> Regardless of where we set the bounds, do you agree to the *concept* >> of having two different modes? > > I don't. There's no reason to have that, and it certainly adds to the > overhead. I do strongly believe it is beneficial to keep the two modes very similar, but with the specific differences I have in mind, it would be rather unlikely to commit something that failed in one mode and worked in the other. -Ben