From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Modi Mo <modimo@microsoft.com>
Cc: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com>,
David Malcolm <dmalcolm@redhat.com>,
Eric Gallager <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu>,
Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>,
Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@microsoft.com>,
Andrew Dean <Andrew.Dean@microsoft.com>,
"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
"ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE" <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>,
"mikestump@comcast.net" <mikestump@comcast.net>,
"law@redhat.com" <law@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Wakely <cxx@kayari.org>,
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Subject: C++11 bootstrap (was: GCC selftest improvements)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:55:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADzB+2m0f-Qx1kRYyv_JYNH3Mg67Mk-zUav3pTGPWKJV5fBpAA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR21MB1508456D794E4656F3329867CC1A0@BY5PR21MB1508.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:18 PM Modi Mo <modimo@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > Thanks for the patch.
> > >
> > > Some nitpicks:
> > >
> > > Timing-wise, the GCC developer community is focusing on gcc 10
> > > bugfixing right now (aka "stage 4" of the release cycle). So this
> > > patch won't be suitable to commit to master until stage 1 of the
> > > release cycle for gcc 11 (in April, hopefully).
> > >
>
> Ah I should've looked a bit harder for timelines before asking https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html. Appreciate the response here!
>
> > > But yes, it's probably a good idea to get feedback on the patch given
> > > the breadth of platforms we support.
> > >
> > > The patch will need an update to the docs; search for "Tools/packages
> > > necessary for building GCC" in gcc/doc/install.texi, which currently
> > > has some paragraphs labelled:
> > > @item ISO C++98 compiler
> > > that will need changing.
> > >
> > > I think Richi mentioned that the minimum gcc version should be 4.8.2
> > > as he recalled issues with .1, so maybe the error message and docs
> > > should reflect that?
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00180.html
> > >
>
> Segher here suggests 4.8.5 instead of 4.8.2:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-11/msg00192.html
>
> Looking at release dates 4.8.5 was in June 2015 while 4.8.2 in October 2013 which is a pretty big gap. I'd for moving the needle as far as we reasonably can since this is a leap anyways. @Segher do you have a reason in mind for the higher versioning?
> > > This may be opening a can of worms that should wait until we're done
> > > with the GCC 10 release, but there's probably an eventual wider
> > > discussion about what parts of C++11 we should use; pragmatically
> > > we're also limited by gengtype, the tool that scrapes the source code
> > > looking for garbage-collector markup, as that imposes a subset of C++ on us.
> > >
> > > I'd love to be able to rely on move semantics and thus use e.g.
> > > std::unique_ptr to capture more of our memory-management in the type
> > > system (we currently have a limited C++98-compatible implementation in
> > > the tree in the form of gnu::unique_ptr).
> > >
> > > How much of the stdlib do we see ourselves using? I think we've
> > > avoided std::string and the <<-style stream APIs; is there a case for
> > > using some of the other data structures?
> > >
> > > For reference, see
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Cxx_Conventions
> > >
> > > Hope this is constructive.
> > > Dave
> > Dave,
> >
> > I recall originally bringing up the move. From memory I recall that these were
> > the features we wanted or the people in the discussion wanted from C++11:
> > 1. Better Rounding and Stricter Integer and other number type rules 2. Template
> > Aliasing 3. Auto and for each style loops 4. Move and R Value Semantics
> >
>
> Agreed on these features. I really like having access to 'for (const auto & foo : bar)'
> > There was a little discussion about lambas and anonymous functions but I don't
> > recall that being clear in terms of one of the above areas for sure.
For information, bootstrap with 4.8.5 -std=gnu++11 works now with no
other changes. It seems the only other changes needed will be to
documentation.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-14 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-24 20:50 GCC selftest improvements Andrew Dean via gcc
2019-10-24 21:09 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-10-25 6:17 ` David Malcolm
2019-10-25 22:38 ` Andrew Dean via gcc
2019-10-26 0:01 ` Gabriel Dos Reis via gcc
2019-10-26 22:46 ` Eric Gallager
2019-10-31 15:56 ` Pedro Alves
2019-12-02 2:50 ` Eric Gallager
2020-02-13 0:49 ` [EXTERNAL] " Modi Mo via gcc
2020-02-13 1:53 ` David Malcolm
2020-02-13 2:28 ` Nicholas Krause
2020-02-13 22:18 ` Modi Mo via gcc
2020-02-14 14:55 ` Jason Merrill [this message]
2020-02-14 23:10 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-02-15 16:14 ` Jeff Law
2020-02-25 19:58 ` Modi Mo via gcc
2020-02-25 22:11 ` David Malcolm
2020-02-25 22:13 ` Gabriel Dos Reis via gcc
2020-03-02 22:19 ` Modi Mo via gcc
2019-10-28 19:40 ` Jeff Law
2019-10-28 19:42 ` Richard Biener
2019-10-28 19:44 ` Jeff Law
2019-10-28 19:46 ` Gabriel Dos Reis via gcc
2019-10-28 20:27 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-10-28 21:41 ` Jeff Law
2019-10-28 21:47 ` Jakub Jelinek
2019-10-28 21:52 ` Andrew Pinski
2019-10-28 22:02 ` Jeff Law
2019-10-28 22:03 ` Gabriel Dos Reis via gcc
2019-10-29 8:41 ` Richard Biener
2019-10-31 16:09 ` Pedro Alves
2019-10-28 21:50 ` Iain Sandoe
2019-10-28 22:12 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-10-29 8:45 ` Richard Biener
2019-11-22 21:02 ` Andrew Dean via gcc
2019-11-22 22:02 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-11-22 22:36 ` Jakub Jelinek
2019-11-22 23:41 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-11-23 16:33 ` Jeff Law
2019-11-23 23:03 ` Nicholas Krause
2020-02-14 20:50 ` Mike Stump
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CADzB+2m0f-Qx1kRYyv_JYNH3Mg67Mk-zUav3pTGPWKJV5fBpAA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=Andrew.Dean@microsoft.com \
--cc=cxx@kayari.org \
--cc=dmalcolm@redhat.com \
--cc=egall@gwmail.gwu.edu \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdr@microsoft.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=mikestump@comcast.net \
--cc=modimo@microsoft.com \
--cc=pedro@palves.net \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de \
--cc=xerofoify@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).