From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 123901 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2017 08:36:01 -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 123450 invoked by uid 89); 27 Oct 2017 08:36:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=HX-Received:10.80.195.4, our X-HELO: mail-wm0-f67.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f67.google.com) (74.125.82.67) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:35:59 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id r68so2145459wmr.3 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:35:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YGo8lqkCwz5zbvha9rlbwfxeczTq/F0sqLNeCj4RYSY=; b=FUB38U8+ULjgComfddsg2XjwgIVoaLE83kgUpsv318jMhLdjUZC7H26HydzCsevQxr X2OXVMvz0ijwPYGFE4JLhNMbUyxDf87/dvza9Ve7ombgR8hw0oLfTzBk38/t+iE6GXep sx2jwgShfa6HbAjJpH+7daRqjnhp4bYvUCfJmgmbmyN4PSrm2+/OXiHBkvquC1iR6qEr UtVLAsWE8fc3U8MwmmEmeB1fCiCv6vJMkjIl8uJH5+CEFFeq8RlwtVI/rR4V0U+c+EfJ t7fUwmB9Or228FD14f+RCFXv8ik5fyiP45xPPBtwfcjOzLK5UbjwwCT5hwf8CweFP/sK Yr4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVU/9y8KZzYexJHEmXdHb/nr+G9bvzSQ69qTC/DnP/RGrnW8LpN zvvvDGXRWAOu8TjsrZ4f7KENZa0HkgfYClKU4fedPQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+S3vcEOfYpalRD3KJ4LlZe7elsEASGl/WFFEYOpG69KL3XqWmYowlOuAC3b6GDDIKSbCEDtLD1Iac/+vbYfVUs= X-Received: by 10.80.195.4 with SMTP id a4mr31411183edb.142.1509093357279; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:35:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.143.34 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:35:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20171026194356.GV14653@tucnak> References: <87wp3mxgir.fsf@linaro.org> <87tvyqw1ki.fsf@linaro.org> <87y3ny14rf.fsf@linaro.org> <20171026194356.GV14653@tucnak> From: Richard Biener Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [09/nn] Add a fixed_size_mode_pod class To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: GCC Patches , Richard Sandiford Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg02030.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 02:43:55PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Richard Sandiford >> wrote: >> > Richard Biener writes: >> >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Richard Sandiford >> >> wrote: >> >>> This patch adds a POD version of fixed_size_mode. The only current use >> >>> is for storing the __builtin_apply and __builtin_result register modes, >> >>> which were made fixed_size_modes by the previous patch. >> >> >> >> Bah - can we update our host compiler to C++11/14 please ...? >> >> (maybe requiring that build with GCC 4.8 as host compiler works, >> >> GCC 4.3 has -std=c++0x, but I'm quite sure that's not enough). >> > >> > That'd be great :-) It would avoid all the poly_int_pod stuff too, >> > and allow some clean-up of wide-int.h. >> >> Can you figure what oldest GCC release supports the C++11/14 POD handling >> that would be required? > > I think it is too early for that, we aren't LLVM or Rust that don't really > care about what build requirements they impose on users. That's true, which is why I asked. For me requiring sth newer than GCC 4.8 would be a blocker given that's the system compiler on our latest server (and "stable" OSS) product. I guess it depends on the amount of pain we have going forward with C++ use in GCC. Given that gdb already requires C++11 people building GCC are likely already experiencing the "issue". Richard. > Jakub