From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6471 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2019 22:36:35 -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 6463 invoked by uid 89); 22 Nov 2019 22:36:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=bumping, shipping X-HELO: us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) (205.139.110.61) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:36:33 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1574462192; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6Wt/PCVFTqPcDlu+t2v3vvCRqljDJFF0E1c+luH1NeI=; b=NcxfbK3RLvexg3xBxDevf/qNW2jbpe5UCafnt/8K800PLCvXc3iQtsZ1B/ypSTm9BCtbaS EcpBbYPJ1ABCRLJ0q71Shu3vkb0oNdot3QURwm0neqYm7QSBhIv0Um7jRr7Ix5JaEMYH69 SXmkbNUa2/Ri+Me+DyNcPBkAc6TZz6U= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-142-nHfsns3PNlyjPFgUlOv_Zw-1; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 17:36:30 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A372107ACE3; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:36:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-117-59.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.59]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93CAD60BE0; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id xAMMaO26013529; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:36:24 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id xAMMaIDB013527; Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:36:18 +0100 Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 22:36:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: Andrew Dean , Richard Biener , Jeff Law , Gabriel Dos Reis , David Malcolm , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE" , "mikestump@comcast.net" , "jason@redhat.com" , Jonathan Wakely Subject: Re: GCC selftest improvements Message-ID: <20191122223618.GF2466@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20191028202713.GF28442@gate.crashing.org> <00dcb1c4-793c-c44f-da1b-eabe067c7e1e@redhat.com> <20191028221203.GG28442@gate.crashing.org> <20191122220143.GH9491@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191122220143.GH9491@gate.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg00193.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:01:43PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +0000, Andrew Dean wrote: > > > > Many systems do not have a system compiler newer than this *four ye= ars > > > > old* one. GCC 4.8 is the first GCC version that supports all of > > > > C++11, which is the only reason it would be even near acceptable to > > > > require something this *new*. > > >=20 > > > Agreed. Note we're even shipping new service packs for SLE12 which h= as that > > > "ancient" compiler version (OTOH there _is_ a fully supported GCC 9 a= vailable > > > for SLE12 as well). > > >=20 > > > So, if we want C++11 then fine. But requiring GCC 9+ isn't going to = fly. IIRC > > > GCC 6 is first having -std=3Dc++14 by default, but unless there's a c= ompelling > > > reason to use C++14 in GCC I'd rather not do it at this point. > > >=20 > > > Removing all the workarounds in the tree we have for GCC 4.[12].x wou= ld of > > > course be nice. > > >=20 > > > But I have to update the testers that still use GCC 4.1.x as host com= piler :P >=20 > > Richard/Segher: Are we in agreement that we can move forward with updat= ing to c++11 as the minimum version? I have made the simple change locally = to modify the flag and verified that I got the exact same test results with= /without the change. I can look into the work to add a configuration warnin= g if the compiler doesn't support c++11, but wanted to make sure we are on = the same page before doing so. >=20 > If GCC 4.8.5 works as bootstrap compiler, it is fine with me, and good > progress too. (Which means 4.8.5 has to work for at least all primary > targets.) What would be the advantage of bumping the requirement now as opposed to at the start of next stage 1 though? We should be fixing bugs now, not introduce new features nor do code refactoring. Jakub