From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47F473861932 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 14:33:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 47F473861932 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1696516379; bh=WZy43mTKbXc69unCSqVFP/2P35cU2H+fOhlhjk/qffc=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=ko2D/cU+w1T47ES6OTlVCMkhKnrt+84Ick//+M5B1mSNOssF1z3UIT2/wfHck7Q9q WvPi2s29hCoLXU8NO4WE0oX7ZBa4Ddwc52FdOZs95pAa0oSEZq7w6K/2119VaYAgE7 v2RcX+kwH3M+dHeqyo/A7s2i0T2oE2lMdGGpfyNc= Received: from [172.16.0.192] (192-222-143-198.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.143.198]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 061C71E0C2; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 10:32:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 10:32:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Require c++17 compiler Content-Language: fr To: Lancelot SIX , Andrew Burgess , Tom de Vries Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20231005065449.32643-1-tdevries@suse.de> <20231005103354.5loeki67slszfrcy@hpe6u-23> <87h6n5tfu9.fsf@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 10/5/23 10:26, Lancelot SIX via Gdb-patches wrote: > If you take something like gdb::optional for example, it is used quite > extensively in the codebase, and I don't think it would be easy to > remove the it in favor of the standard C++ version any time soon. We > can have gdb::optional be an alias to std::optional, but the codebase > will still continue to use "gdb::optional" independently of how this > is implemented. Wouldn't it be a simple find and replace, gdb::optional to std::optional? Conveniently, it's the same number of characters, so it doesn't even affect line-wrapping. Simon