From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24187 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2012 10:57:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 24076 invoked by uid 48); 12 Dec 2012 10:56:42 -0000 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/54324] [4.8 Regression] GCC install document does not list minimum required g++ version Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:57:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Keywords: documentation X-Bugzilla-Severity: blocker X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg01231.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54324 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2012-12-12 10:56:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > Another proposed patch. > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-12/msg00766.html I very strongly second what stevenb said: GCC 3.2 claims many things, but any GCC that has the old C++ parser has known non-conformances. IMHO we should only support GCC versions with the "new" C++ parser, i.e. GCC 3.4 and up. Expecting people to bootstap with GCC 3.2 to check it doesn't barf on some perfectly valid piece of C++ is unreasonable. If people didn't bootstrap with 3.2 then incompatibilities would creep in and not be found, so claiming that using 3.2 is possible would be a lie. Just say no.