On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:04:50 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Well, the only additional thing this PR does except raise the compiler > version is to change the `--std` flag. It is a bit unclear what that means. > For the JDK libraries, there are already code present that relies on C++17. > For hotspot, what C++ constructions to use is strictly limited by the code > standard document. As long as it does not mention any C++17 constructs, it > does not really matter what the `--std` flag says. But, otoh, to be able to > say something about C++17, we need first have proper support from all > compilers. > > So I'd say just chill a bit, give folks some time to respond. My > understanding of the situation is as follows: > > * Raising clang to 13.0 is uncontroversial > > * Raising xlc to 17.1.1.4 seems acceptable by the folks using it (I hope > I got that right) > > * Raising gcc to 10.0 met some resistance. We could stop at gcc 9.0 for > this PR (which is enough for C++17), and then continue discussing going to > gcc 10.0 in a separate PR, or we can wait a bit more to see if @shipilev > feels compelled by the arguments given in the discussion to accept going to > 10. I'd like to separate the version update discussions from C++17 specifics, so we can have focused discussions on the version choices. Of course, that's going to be informed by the possibility of C++17, but that's not the only factor. That way this issue can be just about turning on C++17, when, and why. In order to do that, I've filed the following issues about version updates: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325881 Require minimum gcc version 10 https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325878 Require minimum clang version 13 https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8325880 Require minimum OpenXL C/C++ version 17.1.1 PRs will follow shortly. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14988#issuecomment-1944126546
