This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce gdb::unique_ptr
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:45:42 +0200
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
> Cc: palves@redhat.com, brobecker@adacore.com, markus.t.metzger@intel.com,
> gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 12:06:33 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > That depends. Mingw.org has only 5.3.0 as the latest offering, and
> > recently enough (a few months ago) it only had 4.9.3. So please be very
> > careful when you make assumptions about how widespread a certain
> > compiler version is in n on-Posix world.
>
> 5.3.0 was released 2016-04-27
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/MinGW/Base/gcc/Version5/gcc-5.3.0-2/
> 4.9.3 was released 2015-07-25
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/MinGW/Base/gcc/Version4/gcc-4.9.3-1/
That's what I said, without giving the exact numbers, no?
> That was after 9 months. 4.8.1 was released May 2013 = 41 months ago.
>
> I find 9 and 41 months a big difference.
Yes, 41 - 9 = 32. So? What is the significance of this for the issue
at hand?
> Besides that AFAIK mingw.org is dead, it has been superseded by mingw-w64.org.
No, it isn't dead and isn't superseded. Your information is wrong.
> What are you trying to say?
That your assumptions about the availability of latest compiler
versions are too optimistic, IMO. On GNU/Linux, and certainly on
MS-Windows.
> A dead project makes releases 4.5x faster than what GDB would
> require for its build. You more justify that GDB could for example
> require even C++14.
Sorry, I cannot parse these 2 sentences.
> And even if someone does not have the C++11 compiler installed most
> of the users prefer to install applications (such as is GDB) in a
> binary form anyway.
Somebody must produce those binaries first. Someone like this guy,
for example:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ezwinports/files/
That someone does need to have the required tools.