From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20476 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2019 23:03:02 -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 20466 invoked by uid 89); 23 Nov 2019 23:03:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*i:sk:bd13ba7, H*f:sk:bd13ba7, H*MI:sk:bd13ba7, shipping X-HELO: mail-qt1-f181.google.com Received: from mail-qt1-f181.google.com (HELO mail-qt1-f181.google.com) (209.85.160.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:03:01 +0000 Received: by mail-qt1-f181.google.com with SMTP id i17so12554926qtq.1 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2019 15:03:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=ytgp+7uOMZizU7n8CBA9/2TEWUd0twAsdKHdlTJHCJg=; b=ep3j/upRww6P8BnQudaQKi9RNsBQnf9b9z0F1aazAAGfYGWVcfj/4Rn6Yl6J5TGR1I QYce+q/51jKUeshBiN/vX5ghF2vZkKI0ApaYuXEypAtKQDPrXNlYUzY0VsN4VfKs3c+v bLbrw+gBANF4/vOVjY8R/X4PQlqG4ikr9BDRxOGdiVrrOcYLU9XcksQgV9q/c6giSeTX xa8i3fT+zSZAGKj+e6P2WyvxgHn4wSOClOSoZfLMYYaNF4sc17Z3OAT7aljnqMcfxDaG W/hdBlRV4j/fOERGIy+6whc0lYcKXQ0eYIoiM3My4ET8nkm+y2+VyQqpbZQAIEJCezs9 rd1A== Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.103] (173-230-163-230.cable.teksavvy.com. [173.230.163.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k27sm1004920qkj.30.2019.11.23.15.02.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Nov 2019 15:02:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: GCC selftest improvements To: Jeff Law , Segher Boessenkool , Jakub Jelinek Cc: Andrew Dean , Richard Biener , Gabriel Dos Reis , David Malcolm , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE" , "mikestump@comcast.net" , "jason@redhat.com" , Jonathan Wakely References: <20191028202713.GF28442@gate.crashing.org> <00dcb1c4-793c-c44f-da1b-eabe067c7e1e@redhat.com> <20191028221203.GG28442@gate.crashing.org> <20191122220143.GH9491@gate.crashing.org> <20191122223618.GF2466@tucnak> <20191122234144.GJ9491@gate.crashing.org> From: Nicholas Krause Message-ID: <9c0946fd-c0ea-fa04-033d-43d63191c573@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 23:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 On 11/23/19 11:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/22/19 4:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> 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 years >>>>>>> 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*. >>>>>> Agreed. Note we're even shipping new service packs for SLE12 which has that >>>>>> "ancient" compiler version (OTOH there _is_ a fully supported GCC 9 available >>>>>> for SLE12 as well). >>>>>> >>>>>> So, if we want C++11 then fine. But requiring GCC 9+ isn't going to fly. IIRC >>>>>> GCC 6 is first having -std=c++14 by default, but unless there's a compelling >>>>>> reason to use C++14 in GCC I'd rather not do it at this point. >>>>>> >>>>>> Removing all the workarounds in the tree we have for GCC 4.[12].x would of >>>>>> course be nice. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I have to update the testers that still use GCC 4.1.x as host compiler :P >>>>> Richard/Segher: Are we in agreement that we can move forward with updating 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 warning if the compiler doesn't support c++11, but wanted to make sure we are on the same page before doing so. >>>> 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. >> Oh, I meant for GCC 11, of course. I thought we all agreed on that. > Yea, I don't see that stepping forward for gcc-10 really brings us > anything. We're past stage1 and thus Andrew's work would naturally > target gcc-11. > > So the advice I'd give Andrew is go ahead with using C++11 as needed. > However, also try to be sensible in terms of what features you use :-) > > jeff CCing myself to the conversation as the original idea contributor for adding support for C++11. Thanks, Nick >