This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCC selftest improvements

On 11/22/19 4:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:01:43PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +0000, Andrew Dean wrote:
>>>>>> 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: 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.
>>> If GCC 4.8.5 works as bootstrap compiler, it is fine with me, and good
>>> progress too.  (Which means 4.8.5 has to work for at least all primary
>>> targets.)
>> What would be the advantage of bumping the requirement now as opposed to at
>> the start of next stage 1 though?  We should be fixing bugs now, not
>> introduce new features nor do code refactoring.
> Oh, I meant for GCC 11, of course.  I thought we all agreed on that.
Yea, I don't see that stepping forward for gcc-10 really brings us
anything.  We're past stage1 and thus Andrew's work would naturally
target gcc-11.

So the advice I'd give Andrew is go ahead with using C++11 as needed.
However, also try to be sensible in terms of what features you use :-)


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]