This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
> From: Pedro Alves <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:32:09 +0100
> As Simon said, this is just like making use of some gnulib module
> to make up for some missing bit in the system's C runtime.
A new version of a language is entirely different from a missing
> I fail to see the worry here. It's not like I'm proposing to only
> enable some user-visible feature if GDB is built with some compiler
Rest assured, very soon we will. It's not that different from what
you are suggesting now, so once allowed, we will have no good
arguments to disallow that in the future, including when it affects
user-visible features. Someone will come up and say "how is that
different from having features on GNU/Linux that are not available on
other OSes?" And we will have no good answer for them.
The _only_ good answer in these cases is the established coding
standards and project-wide regulations. Nothing else stands in the
face of the "why not?" arguments.
> > 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. So "completely false" is completely false. And what
you are suggesting, while not as radical as what Jan says, will still
get us there soon enough.
> At this point I have to wonder whether you're not listening on
This goes both ways, you know. And I hope you understand how it could
be an insult when actually written in a discussion. Why do we need to
get to this level each time I happen to disagree with something here?
It's the reason why I speak so little here about my opinions on the