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

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, markus.t.metzger@intel.com,
>         gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:37:01 +0100
> 
> 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.

Would you please refrain from labeling my (or anyone else's) arguments
with derogatory labels?  Please always assume that anything like that
is due to some misunderstanding, not to anything else.  Otherwise, you
are converting a technical argument into an ad-hominem, something that
neither you nor anyone else wants.

> 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...

I have no reason to be sure that was tongue-in-cheek.  And I have no
reason to regard as obvious that no one will be requiring C++17 any
time soon, not without anyone, nor our coding standards, saying that.

So from my POV, that was no straw man argument at all.  Jan is one of
the more influential developers here, so his opinions certainly have a
significant weight with me.  I regard things that he writes very
seriously.

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

Not directly, no.  But C++14 is not fully supported until GCC 5,
AFAIK, so who knows what C++17 might mean; it certainly does mean a
new enough GCC version, possibly GCC 6 or newer.  Thus my reaction.

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

Agreed.  But there wasn't any argument about this particular aspect,
i.e. which GCC version would be needed for C++11 support.

> > So "completely false" is completely false. 
> 
> You're repeated claims that people are suggesting to require
> GCC 6.1 are provably false.

See above: they are not provably false, or at least that's not the
only possible interpretation of what's being said here.

> 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.

So we agree that requiring 6.1 at this point is not something we
should do.  Good.  Now let's decide at some point for how long we will
keep GCC 4.8 (or some older version, if we decide to stick to an older
C++ standard) as the lowest version we require.  Then these arguments
will not happen anymore, at least for some time.

> > 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...

This isn't about trusting you personally.  I'm just old enough to know
how these things develop and what is the social dynamics that
facilitates them.  It's our human nature.

> And conversely, I hope you understand how repeated straw man
> arguments even after they're categorically dismissed could be
> taken as an insult.

They are not straw men, they are good-faith arguments and concerns.
Please treat them as such.