19. juni 2015 kl. 08:51 skrev Joakim Hove <[email protected]>: > Statoil has recently upgraded the computing infrastructure to RedHat 6, as a > consequence of this we now have access to a newer compiler release. As part > of the developer toolkit RedHat 6 ships with gcc version 4.9; for Statoil it > is therefore no longer of importance to support gcc 4.4, and I suggest we > target a newer compiler. The old boost version (1.45) makes use of some > deprecated gcc features, so if we upgrade gcc we must also upgrade boost. > Seen from the Statoil navel these version requirements would be well suited: > > gcc 4.9 or newer (4.9.0 was released april 2014) > boost 1.55 / 1.58 (1.58 is the newest – debian stable has > 1.55) > > But there might be sound arguments to settle on something else?
I think we should take a look at what Ubuntu LTS releases use, that would make life easy for those who use those releases (and many people do) for their workstations or virtual boxes. For gcc, 14.04 has 4.8.2 and 12.04 has 4.6.3. Going from supporting 4.4 to 4.6 opens up some very nice C++11 features, including lambdas and range-based for loops. There are still more C++ features going from 4.6 to 4.8 (delegating constructors for example), but it is not as big step as going to 4.6. From 4.8 to 4.9 there are no significant C++ features added (I guess it was more or less complete in 4.8), however generalized lambdas and some other C++14 could be interesting. Based on this, my proposal is that we support gcc 4.8, that is, we allow use of those features in the code that are available in that compiler. This means that 12.04 LTS is no longer supported, I am fine with that. For boost, I am not sure of what is available, but in general it should not be problematic to use a newer boost version than the minimum (although exceptions happen, such as for boost filesystem v2 to v3). I suggest that we discuss increasing the minimum boost version whenever someone wants/needs to use a feature not available in the current minimum version. Atgeirr _______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
