This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC selftest improvements
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:12 PM Segher Boessenkool
<segher@kernel.crashing.org> 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?
>
> Many systems do not have a system compiler newer than this *four years old*
> one. GCC 4.8 is the first GCC version that supports all of C++11, which is
> the only reason it would be even near acceptable to require something this
> *new*.
Agreed. Note we're even shipping new service packs for SLE12 which has that
"ancient" compiler version (OTOH there _is_ a fully supported GCC 9 available
for SLE12 as well).
So, if we want C++11 then fine. But requiring GCC 9+ isn't going to fly. IIRC
GCC 6 is first having -std=c++14 by default, but unless there's a compelling
reason to use C++14 in GCC I'd rather not do it at this point.
Removing all the workarounds in the tree we have for GCC 4.[12].x would of
course be nice.
But I have to update the testers that still use GCC 4.1.x as host compiler :P
Richard.
>
> Segher