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: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, 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: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 09:40:53 +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> <20191028202713.GF28442@gate.crashing.org> <00dcb1c4-793c-c44f-da1b-eabe067c7e1e@redhat.com> <20191028214656.GB4650@tucnak>
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:47 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.
Yes, I've agreed to raise the requirement to GCC 4.8 which provides
C++11 support.
For convenience we could also provide a configure-time hint if the host compiler
doesn't have C++11 support or is older than 4.8.2 (I think .1 has some issues).
Rather than only running into some obscure errors later on.
Richard.
> Jakub
>