On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:18 PM Modi Mo <mod...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > Thanks for the patch. > > > > > > Some nitpicks: > > > > > > Timing-wise, the GCC developer community is focusing on gcc 10 > > > bugfixing right now (aka "stage 4" of the release cycle). So this > > > patch won't be suitable to commit to master until stage 1 of the > > > release cycle for gcc 11 (in April, hopefully). > > > > > Ah I should've looked a bit harder for timelines before asking > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html. Appreciate the response here! > > > > But yes, it's probably a good idea to get feedback on the patch given > > > the breadth of platforms we support. > > > > > > The patch will need an update to the docs; search for "Tools/packages > > > necessary for building GCC" in gcc/doc/install.texi, which currently > > > has some paragraphs labelled: > > > @item ISO C++98 compiler > > > that will need changing. > > > > > > I think Richi mentioned that the minimum gcc version should be 4.8.2 > > > as he recalled issues with .1, so maybe the error message and docs > > > should reflect that? > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00180.html > > > > > Segher here suggests 4.8.5 instead of 4.8.2: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-11/msg00192.html > > Looking at release dates 4.8.5 was in June 2015 while 4.8.2 in October 2013 > which is a pretty big gap. I'd for moving the needle as far as we reasonably > can since this is a leap anyways. @Segher do you have a reason in mind for > the higher versioning? > > > This may be opening a can of worms that should wait until we're done > > > with the GCC 10 release, but there's probably an eventual wider > > > discussion about what parts of C++11 we should use; pragmatically > > > we're also limited by gengtype, the tool that scrapes the source code > > > looking for garbage-collector markup, as that imposes a subset of C++ on > > > us. > > > > > > I'd love to be able to rely on move semantics and thus use e.g. > > > std::unique_ptr to capture more of our memory-management in the type > > > system (we currently have a limited C++98-compatible implementation in > > > the tree in the form of gnu::unique_ptr). > > > > > > How much of the stdlib do we see ourselves using? I think we've > > > avoided std::string and the <<-style stream APIs; is there a case for > > > using some of the other data structures? > > > > > > For reference, see > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Cxx_Conventions > > > > > > Hope this is constructive. > > > Dave > > Dave, > > > > I recall originally bringing up the move. From memory I recall that these > > were > > the features we wanted or the people in the discussion wanted from C++11: > > 1. Better Rounding and Stricter Integer and other number type rules 2. > > Template > > Aliasing 3. Auto and for each style loops 4. Move and R Value Semantics > > > > Agreed on these features. I really like having access to 'for (const auto & > foo : bar)' > > There was a little discussion about lambas and anonymous functions but I > > don't > > recall that being clear in terms of one of the above areas for sure.
For information, bootstrap with 4.8.5 -std=gnu++11 works now with no other changes. It seems the only other changes needed will be to documentation. Jason
