This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [09/nn] Add a fixed_size_mode_pod class
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, Trevor Saunders <tbsaunde at tbsaunde dot org>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Richard Sandiford <richard dot sandiford at linaro dot org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:38:48 -0600
- Subject: Re: [09/nn] Add a fixed_size_mode_pod class
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=law at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 1B1D67EA84
- References: <87wp3mxgir.fsf@linaro.org> <2844617.BtP9k82yMO@polaris> <20171031102624.fh3zzuzwhyzvlhbg@ball> <1533026.AhaTS9Ibhl@polaris>
On 10/31/2017 11:22 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I don't see a reason not to other than a pretty small amount of work
>> each time we make a release.
>
> I'm not sure it would be so small an amount of work, especially on non-Linux
> platforms, so this would IMO divert our resources for little benefit.
Having done this for years on HPUX, yes, it takes more time than one
could imagine. THen I went to work for a company that did this for
hpux, solaris, aix, irix and others and well, it was very painful.
>
>> Well first this would only matter to the 0.01% of people who want to do
>> that on AIX or Solaris machines, not the vast majority of possible
>> contributors who already use clang or gcc as there system compiler.
>
> Yes, but we're GCC, not Clang, and we support more than Linux and Darwin.
Very true.
>
>> Thirdly making it easier to work on the compiler and understand it makes
>> things easier for those possible contributors, so if being able to use
>> C++11 advances that goalthings could be better over all for possible
>> contributors with different system compilers.
>
> I don't buy this at all. You don't need bleeding edge C++ features to build a
> compiler and people don't work on compilers to use bleeding edge C++. Using a
> narrow and sensible set of C++ features was one of the conditions under which
> the switch to C++ as implementation language was accepted at the time.
Agreed that we need to stick with a sensible set of features. But the
sensible set isn't necessarily fixed forever.
Jeff