From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122423 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2016 07:10:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 122410 invoked by uid 89); 22 Aug 2016 07:10:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=HCc:D*comcast.net, huh X-HELO: paperclip.tbsaunde.org Received: from tbsaunde.org (HELO paperclip.tbsaunde.org) (66.228.47.254) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:10:42 +0000 Received: from ball (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0c8:8000:80e0:56ee:75ff:fe52:afb9]) by paperclip.tbsaunde.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6047DC091; Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:10:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 07:10:00 -0000 From: Trevor Saunders To: Pedro Alves Cc: Mike Stump , Oleg Endo , Jeff Law , Richard Biener , Aldy Hernandez , Martin Sebor , gcc-patches Subject: Re: C++11? (Re: protected alloca class for malloc fallback) Message-ID: <20160822071848.ognwnsi6yedjrz3a@ball> References: <44EE0FB0-A8B9-43F9-BF58-C4D7D27DA944@gmail.com> <57A5B8BE.2000004@redhat.com> <941D179C-146F-4004-BECB-9FB066DDCC8D@gmail.com> <21bcbebe-28a8-58a7-68e8-af9abcb03dce@redhat.com> <20160808173939.GA13790@ball> <1470742429.639.196.camel@t-online.de> <20160809174139.GA18239@ball> <1470848609.639.405.camel@t-online.de> <619F310F-AED9-477F-9563-20EEB6C3E99F@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-08-08) X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg01499.txt.bz2 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 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 >