You should have no problems using ggc 5.x. What the 4.8 support means is that developers should not use C++ features newer than what 4.8 supports, since that will break build for all users of Ubuntu LTS.
Cheers, Alf 19. juni 2015 19:07 skrev wireless <[email protected]> følgende: On 06/19/2015 02:24 AM, Atgeirr Rasmussen wrote: > > 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 Also please, can we move to supporting gcc 5.(latest) also? I'd be most curious to learn of what others are doing with gcc-5.x, too? James _______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm ------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete this message. Thank you
_______________________________________________ Opm mailing list [email protected] http://www.opm-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opm
