This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Alves []
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:23 PM
> To: Metzger, Markus T <>; gdb-
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr

> > Would it make sense to switch to C++11, instead?
> I think it would make a lot of sense to switch to C++11.  I'd love
> that.  rvalue references support, move-aware containers, "auto",
> std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr would be all very nice to have.
> The only question in my mind is -- are people OK with requiring
> gcc 4.8 or later?
> I think gcc 4.8 or newer were available in Fedora 20.  I believe
> Ubuntu 12.04 had it available as an option.  On older RHEL systems,
> it's available in DTS.
> On older systems, you'd need to compile a newer gcc or clang first
> before building gdb.  Would people find that acceptable?  Or put
> another way, would anyone find that unacceptable?


Wow, that was a long reply to such a small question.  I was mainly
wondering if it makes sense to write (and maintain) ones own version
of a standard library feature.

The big step was not supporting C any longer.  Requiring C++11 looks
small, by comparison.

BTW, I noticed that maintainers seem very busy these days and patches
are waiting unusually long for review.


Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0,
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]