Re: C++11? (Re: protected alloca class for malloc fallback)

[Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde@tbsaunde.org>]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 09:00:26PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 08/20/2016 03:29 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Oleg Endo <oleg.endo@t-online.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Or just wait until people have agreed to switch to C++11 or C++14.  I
> >> don't think in practice anybody uses an C++11-incapable GCC to build a
> >> newer GCC these days.
> 
> gdb will drop support for building with a C compiler any week
> now, and even though we're starting out with C++03, just like gcc,
> it'd be great to require C++11 (or later).  Having gcc itself
> switch to C++11 too would make proposing it for gdb so much
> easier...

huh, I would have sort of expected the oposit, if gdb was to require
C++11, but gcc didn't then you could still use gdb on antique systems
without a C++11 compiler by first building gcc.

> So +1 from me, FWIW.  :-)

 I'd mostly agree, at least requiring a compiler with rvalue references
 would be pretty useful.

> > 
> > I use the system gcc 4.4.7 on RHEL to build a newer cross compiler...  I could bootstrap a newer native compiler, if I had too.
> > 
> 
> Yeah.  I wonder whether the community would in general be fine with
> that too.

 I personally don't have any machines where the system compiler is that
 old, but its worth noting the last C++11 features came in 4.8.1 I think
 and for libstdc++ its even later.

 Trev

> 
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
>