From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 122657 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2019 19:42:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 122648 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2019 19:42:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_MANYTO,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=Catch2, catch2, drastically, GTest X-HELO: mail-wm1-f50.google.com Received: from mail-wm1-f50.google.com (HELO mail-wm1-f50.google.com) (209.85.128.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:42:20 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f50.google.com with SMTP id w9so167784wmm.5 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:42:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:subject:to:from:message-id; bh=N/4xKGp1IUQVmlpvpoPGyh6XY//xI1fTr+qRVeepgEQ=; b=XvYW/nZQoHKOfi3tZc/5CdmC8t4qnNI0Cod4ZZdscLHV93CxHGE3GVPZmc6Rqs0sXG Yb+p0zri4snYLYmNCJsETMEzRP+vX1OA9ZyTAA8HpIcviEWzRxC0XuQqaHtx+yu81Cvo qU+zXAWWIXlvneNjht7z/WO+DV8J33aZx9NAcYMokwnySTrQcK70ORhkPBQdd4a/FryT AOkzaNI5i2uIJ13fP1JxJqxlrfZ4rJ0s6CcgOaevtFHT18/ALvmPsbHGA2wfL2ioHlmj x+90Xx4KimqrCAupPMJtV96sJXFI2mkyQLtssu9B6IGFPVLapT1zag2obdhsY+/3WZQ4 V8gg== Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.178.32] (x5f7270df.dyn.telefonica.de. [95.114.112.223]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t185sm697230wmf.45.2019.10.28.12.42.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 19:42:00 -0000 User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: GCC selftest improvements To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org,Jeff Law ,Gabriel Dos Reis ,Andrew Dean ,David Malcolm ,"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" ,"ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE" ,"mikestump@comcast.net" ,"jason@redhat.com" ,Jonathan Wakely From: Richard Biener Message-ID: <0FD7A1BF-C115-4F83-9DC0-45A55A97D0F0@gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 On October 28, 2019 8:40:03 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote: >On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> [Andrew] >>=20 >> | > 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++. >> |=20 >> | 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) >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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.=20 >jeff