Re: GCC selftest improvements

[Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

On October 28, 2019 8:40:03 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> [Andrew]
>> 
>> | > GCC has some rather unique requirements, in that we support a
>great many
>> | > build configurations, some of which are rather primitive - for
>example,
>> | > requiring just C++98 with exceptions disabled, in that we want to
>be able to
>> | be
>> | > bootstrappable on relatively "ancient" configurations.
>> | > IIRC auto-registration of tests requires that the build
>configuration have a
>> | > sufficiently sane implementation of C++ - having globals with
>non-trivial
>> | ctors
>> | > tends to be problematic when dealing with early implementations
>of C++.
>> | 
>> | Is C++98 the limit of what we can use in GCC? If so, that
>immediately
>> | eliminates Catchv1 (C++03), Catch2 (C++11+) and GTest (C++11)
>> 
>> C++98 was what Diego, Lawrence, Benjamin, Ian, and myself could
>agreed to back in 2011-2012 when C++11 got just out as a C++ standard,
>so we couldn't pick C++11 as we didn't have enough G++ out there to
>count on.
>> 
>> I would expect the situation to have drastically changed - with very
>handy and popular features such as 'constexpr' (especially with the
>C++14 relaxation), lambdas and range-for.
>> 
>> Jason, Jonathan - is the situation on the terrain really that dire
>that C++11 (or C++14) isn't at all available for platforms that GCC is
>bootstrapped from?
>The argument that I'd make is that's relatively uncommon (I know, I
>know
>AIX) that bootstrapping in those environments may well require first
>building something like gcc-9.
>
>I'd really like to see us move to C++11 or beyond.  Sadly, I don't
>think
>we have any good mechanism for making this kind of technical decision
>when there isn't consensus.

Well, we just do it?

Richard. 

>jeff