Re: Moving to C++11

[Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>]

Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> writes:
>>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Jason> Note that std::move is from C++11.
>
>>> I'm not too worried about requiring even a C++14 compiler, for the
>>> set of products we still release latest compilers we have newer
>>> GCCs available we can use for building them (even if those are
>>> not our primary supported compilers which would limit us to
>>> GCC 4.8).
>
> Jason> I wouldn't object to C++14, but there's nothing in there I
> Jason> particularly want to use, so it seems unnecessary.
>
>>> Note I'd still not like to see more C++ feature creep into general
>>> non-container/infrastructure code, C++ is complex enough as-is.
>
> Jason> I agree for rvalue references.  I want to start using C++11 'auto' in
> Jason> local variable declarations.
>
> FWIW in gdb we went with C++11, because it was the version that offered
> the most useful upgrades -- for me those was mainly move and foreach,
> but 'auto' is sometimes nice as well.

FWIW, on top of what's already been mentioned:

- "= default" would be very useful for some of the core types

- explicit conversion operators would avoid dangerous implicit conversions
  to things like bool.  E.g. it should be safe to provide an explicit
  operator bool() for poly_int and avoid those pesky known_eq (..., 0)/
  maybe_ne (..., 0) conditions

- templated type aliases would simplify wide_int

Richard