This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC selftest improvements
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at microsoft dot com>, Andrew Dean <Andrew dot Dean at microsoft dot com>, David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE" <ro at cebitec dot uni-bielefeld dot de>, "mikestump at comcast dot net" <mikestump at comcast dot net>, "jason at redhat dot com" <jason at redhat dot com>, Jonathan Wakely <cxx at kayari dot org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 16:02:26 -0600
- Subject: Re: GCC selftest improvements
- References: <CO2PR00MB01197C9432A2E02C6F1692F1EA6A0@CO2PR00MB0119.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <d16fabaf83d56495ce27f1ef5ca413247c29c24f.camel@redhat.com> <BN3PR00MB0116141705F4EA4B22045A19EA650@BN3PR00MB0116.namprd00.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR2101MB10099E3DB7EB62603AFE4F21B0640@BL0PR2101MB1009.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> <acbd13b7-8869-3b52-1590-27ec4dc894cb@redhat.com> <20191028202713.GF28442@gate.crashing.org> <00dcb1c4-793c-c44f-da1b-eabe067c7e1e@redhat.com> <20191028214656.GB4650@tucnak> <CA+=Sn1m3Wc-gAMr=tu4LRKUxFeoAeKeEA-6DBdN8zBbdnnmbLw@mail.gmail.com>
On 10/28/19 3:52 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:47 PM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:41:13PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>>> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> The argument that I'd make is that's relatively uncommon (I know, I know
>>>>> AIX) that bootstrapping in those environments may well require first
>>>>> building something like gcc-9.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to see us move to C++11 or beyond. Sadly, I don't think
>>>>> we have any good mechanism for making this kind of technical decision
>>>>> when there isn't consensus.
>>>>
>>>> Which GCC version will be required to work as bootstrap compiler? Will
>>>> 4.8.5 be enough?
>>> I'd say gcc-9. What would we gain by making it 4.8 or anything else
>>> that old?
>>
>> That is not a good idea, it will make it much harder to build gcc because
>> not everybody has gcc-9 built as a system compiler.
>> The previous minimum requirement of 4.1 is perhaps too old now that 4.8 is
>> something we could require and gain through that C++11 support, but we
>> shouldn't follow Rust with "you can only build it with 6 weeks old previous
>> release and nothing else".
>> As discussed earlier, we gain most through C++11 support, there is no need
>> to jump to C++17 or C++20 as requirement.
>
> Just a quick note.
> RHEL/CentOS 7 uses GCC 4.8 as the system compiler. Requiring a new
> compiler to compile GCC 10 will not work for me.
At this point RHEL/CentOS 7 is ancient. Time to move forward IMHO :-)
I can live with an older compiler, but I'd prefer we move forward as
much as possible. 4.8 is like living in the stone age.
jeff