This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC selftest improvements
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>,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 20:42:15 +0100
- 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>
On October 28, 2019 8:40:03 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> [Andrew]
>>
>> | > GCC has some rather unique requirements, in that we support a
>great many
>> | > build configurations, some of which are rather primitive - for
>example,
>> | > requiring just C++98 with exceptions disabled, in that we want to
>be able to
>> | be
>> | > bootstrappable on relatively "ancient" configurations.
>> | > IIRC auto-registration of tests requires that the build
>configuration have a
>> | > sufficiently sane implementation of C++ - having globals with
>non-trivial
>> | ctors
>> | > tends to be problematic when dealing with early implementations
>of C++.
>> |
>> | Is C++98 the limit of what we can use in GCC? If so, that
>immediately
>> | eliminates Catchv1 (C++03), Catch2 (C++11+) and GTest (C++11)
>>
>> C++98 was what Diego, Lawrence, Benjamin, Ian, and myself could
>agreed to back in 2011-2012 when C++11 got just out as a C++ standard,
>so we couldn't pick C++11 as we didn't have enough G++ out there to
>count on.
>>
>> I would expect the situation to have drastically changed - with very
>handy and popular features such as 'constexpr' (especially with the
>C++14 relaxation), lambdas and range-for.
>>
>> 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.
Well, we just do it?
Richard.
>jeff