This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Moving to C++11
- From: Tom Tromey <tom at tromey dot com>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, nick <xerofoify at gmail dot com>, gcc Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:54:04 -0600
- Subject: Re: Moving to C++11
- References: <5dfb5453-8dee-5e12-c24d-0e1e81f40501@gmail.com> <CAH6eHdRthBRC2Xc9EM96pUh9tmBeeE45GofvKCf6k=37qwWKwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc3xqNgM31CfikLkb+CGPo3LVC1JkF2v-kiP6p4De9L0Eg@mail.gmail.com> <CADzB+2=usL_53q1sZJC=rLK8omTjXW_xj6jgfqqTBxuJ3C3dcQ@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>> "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.
Tom