This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: GCC selftest improvements
- From: "Andrew Dean via gcc" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr 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: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 21:02:05 +0000
- Subject: RE: GCC selftest improvements
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=microsoft.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=microsoft.com; dkim=pass header.d=microsoft.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=pTmy3aevvLQCTNvHNeWIUh5yMgkg+fcT4ZUPO5egyH0=; b=Zi07mNN5pCV7Sq4Cu7FSMY01I+U3/SvhKspjVebcQiZgxIls/uMLtDuV/WXrvW4btFqaB411nLpGo+TJTSeWfTQrlk1qWG0H9y9Rp8aU1I8mVQS665YIFe02tRbXBU14vUnnfD0BOHXwyHlDizHtc1s1V8qmbaB+Yq1TY3mPaD/MxCxNLlzLfUmGRRgvL3xKnJpuvLX6Jj8+WFkVWPnjiqutfRfHSh3pwDHtwS2/q5MkoBEIVMDeZqEkGNqvCJt2666I6ZeZFcZGwrliOiiRbyZ6wFQav8zkU03Ub2ujARD61Y12XwqJaK87vV9zRuKd1HdiFB3B02kwcqhzU1EeMw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=QHa2iusDhgGrsSefg4/eLSh/oWu8RYoLCbj+3DwJKGM5DRsgFokdqOErEifGrmwQrWDnlJ9p+ja/W7WsAbnTsUjOiT9HBSodjxFnL6XHvCAtkIRtvnz8Uyo8oeN5+z7e9P5TY2JX4reWQww9Du4ilpJ8kT0yvdk7DwWcmTq/ak8UWC5GFmCFy904PqeJekhONVF0NtZJ/Oc86kuw4e7weYq30b07XAq6cCNbD0+JumloVkCqOiagq/59rqIaO9KhWVV17KjNafDs210DSRBIugOBuu5vJ9BEK9/Qf3h3FQOV+rbTDj2meWzOiADp0qcvwThs3dJay9jdX/EZuD44Bg==
- 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> <20191028221203.GG28442@gate.crashing.org> <CAFiYyc1ebisLwK18VxLrTa3MMTm1H1yifOLJ-cdFg7b-Ed+LRQ@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Andrew Dean <Andrew dot Dean at microsoft dot com>
> > 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
Richard/Segher: Are we in agreement that we can move forward with updating to c++11 as the minimum version? I have made the simple change locally to modify the flag and verified that I got the exact same test results with/without the change. I can look into the work to add a configuration warning if the compiler doesn't support c++11, but wanted to make sure we are on the same page before doing so.