From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94367 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2019 22:46:45 -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 94057 invoked by uid 89); 26 Oct 2019 22:46:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=lawrence, wanting, HX-Received:91f6, dire X-HELO: mail-ed1-f53.google.com Received: from mail-ed1-f53.google.com (HELO mail-ed1-f53.google.com) (209.85.208.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 22:46:43 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-f53.google.com with SMTP id r16so4829070edq.11 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 15:46:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gwmail-gwu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZqMAilisf3Xo1fdnGa8jGTEpDWFqBJ8uMEagUUH7i5I=; b=yOj0pY+PiJXgA+bRZ7IGPRAYdCK2VAD9dynyS3JcJiltOzZhtr00pCId9DyYOdL1JR xm45gFTDKj9i6euUt1KZe0vW2cClnUOKLJ7MXAyM8WnvvKxMAiZmJEiiooS6jSAzpbiH oJ6+cc61BIybX2IuRRg/O6pyx/hu9Xz63emARJK29ViH2S8rUJ8+1u2ZJ5yDYvk8kj8o oLQbTbjvtiI9GICXwiuIShk/XSdZ2mgfpMKYCSGL4vJpzy3F1D86pkrW3tA1Bz/RRtL8 nGtcW2FQFNlwjehcRVVgjTP0QoXp4CiROPsvyJn2RwXwrCFfmfTsvjvRicBgXACfqqxQ 7Exw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a17:906:48d4:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Oct 2019 15:46:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Eric Gallager Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 22:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GCC selftest improvements To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: Andrew Dean , David Malcolm , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE" , "mikestump@comcast.net" , "law@redhat.com" , "jason@redhat.com" , Jonathan Wakely Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg00164.txt.bz2 On 10/25/19, Gabriel Dos Reis via gcc 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? > > -- Gaby > Nicholas Krause was also wanting to move to C++11 recently: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00110.html (this month) https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-09/msg00228.html (last month) As I said in that thread, I'd want to try just toggling -Wnarrowing from off to on first before going full C++11. So, GCC 10 would be C++98 + -Wnarrowing, and then GCC 11 could be full C++11. Plus then the GCC version numbers would also line up with the version of C++ being used. Eric