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: Go C++11?

On 10/19/2016 07:02 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 06:43 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:

>> Sooo....  Shall we proceed with the straw man proposal and
>> apply the patches at [2] (enable -std=gnu+11 on gcc >= 4.8)?
>>  [1] -
>>  [2] -
>> Do people feel this hasn't been sufficiently discussed?
>> If we can do this now, I'll happily drop my shim in favor of
>> jumping to C++11 quicker!  Maybe it'll find a home in gcc.  :-)
>> I'd love to hear feedback.
> I personally feel this hasn't been discussed much, but honestly it
> doesn't feel like discussion is going to change anything here other than
> create clashes of ideas. :-)


Right, discussion just for the sake of it is not in anyone's interests, IMO.

AFAIK, all blockers that _I_ thought existed either don't actually
exist or have been resolved.

If there are specific, actual blockers, we should certainly discuss those.

> I've seen this go from "You got it wrong. We're not going to move to
> C++11" to "So, shall we move now?" rather quickly. 

To be clear, the original message, which is still true was:

The gdb::unique_ptr patch does _not_ make us require C++11.

> Nothing showed up in gdb@ either.
> Since we're already moving things quickly, we should probably discuss a
> policy to accept the next standard version and follow that from now on.

IMO such a discussion doesn't have to block starting to require C++11,
and can happen in parallel, since for sure we're not going to start
thinking about requiring C++14 right now.

In any case, Eli has suggested a policy.

Pedro Alves

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