Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Guillaume Emont]

Quoting Guillaume Emont (2019-06-24 19:03:53)
> Quoting Sam Weinig (2019-06-17 03:25:15)
> > Did we ever land on conclusion here? 
> > 
> > I tried to use c++17 structured bindings (see 
> > https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198905) and it looks like most of 
> > the EWS bots are ok with it, but the jsc-mips and jsc-armv7 bots are not 
> > into it.  Looking at the output, it seems like those bots may still be 
> > using GCC 6.4.0 (but I could be wrong here).
> > 
> > If the issue is getting these bots updated, can we do that? Are there any 
> > other bots that might need updating as well?
> 
> The jsc-mips and jsc-armv7 EWS bots, as well as the corresponding
> buildbots have been updated. They now use gcc 8.3.0. The armv7 softfp
> ABI buildbot[1] still needs updating, but there is no corresponding EWS.
> I hope to have that last update done during the week.

The update of the last bot has now been done.
Also, forgot the address[1] of the bot in my previous email:

[1] 
https://build.webkit.org/builders/JSCOnly%20Linux%20ARMv7%20Thumb2%20SoftFP%20Release

Cheers,

Guillaume
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Guillaume Emont]

Quoting Sam Weinig (2019-06-17 03:25:15)
> Did we ever land on conclusion here? 
> 
> I tried to use c++17 structured bindings (see 
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198905) and it looks like most of the 
> EWS bots are ok with it, but the jsc-mips and jsc-armv7 bots are not into it. 
>  Looking at the output, it seems like those bots may still be using GCC 6.4.0 
> (but I could be wrong here).
> 
> If the issue is getting these bots updated, can we do that? Are there any 
> other bots that might need updating as well?

The jsc-mips and jsc-armv7 EWS bots, as well as the corresponding
buildbots have been updated. They now use gcc 8.3.0. The armv7 softfp
ABI buildbot[1] still needs updating, but there is no corresponding EWS.
I hope to have that last update done during the week.

Cheers,

Guillaume

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Sam Weinig]

> On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:45 AM, Guillaume Emont  wrote:
> 
> Quoting Sam Weinig (2019-06-17 03:25:15)
>> Did we ever land on conclusion here? 
>> 
>> I tried to use c++17 structured bindings (see 
>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198905 
>> ) and it looks like most of 
>> the EWS bots are ok with it, but the jsc-mips and jsc-armv7 bots are not 
>> into it.  Looking at the output, it seems like those bots may still be using 
>> GCC 6.4.0 (but I could be wrong here).
>> 
>> If the issue is getting these bots updated, can we do that? Are there any 
>> other bots that might need updating as well?
> 
> Sorry, yes indeed, jsc-mips and jsc-armv7 still use an old gcc. I've
> been working on updating this but got sidetracked. This is now on top of
> my priority list for this week. Thank you for your patience.
> 
> Guillaume
> 

Thanks Guillaume.

>> 
>> - Sam
>> 
>>> On May 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Michael Catanzaro  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:47 PM, Yusuke Suzuki  wrote:
 1. We can use GCC 7
 2. We can use libstdc++7
 Is my understanding correct? Basically, this means that we can use cool 
 C++17 features super aggressively :)
>>> 
>>> I would say you can use cool C++ 17 features cautiously, enjoying those 
>>> features when they work, and expecting the possibility of libstdc++7 bugs 
>>> causing them to not work.
>>> 
>>> I think our EWS bots are not yet on GCC 7, but that should be addressed 
>>> soon.
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>> 
>> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
> 
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Guillaume Emont]

Quoting Sam Weinig (2019-06-17 03:25:15)
> Did we ever land on conclusion here? 
> 
> I tried to use c++17 structured bindings (see 
> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198905) and it looks like most of the 
> EWS bots are ok with it, but the jsc-mips and jsc-armv7 bots are not into it. 
>  Looking at the output, it seems like those bots may still be using GCC 6.4.0 
> (but I could be wrong here).
> 
> If the issue is getting these bots updated, can we do that? Are there any 
> other bots that might need updating as well?

Sorry, yes indeed, jsc-mips and jsc-armv7 still use an old gcc. I've
been working on updating this but got sidetracked. This is now on top of
my priority list for this week. Thank you for your patience.

Guillaume

> 
> - Sam
> 
> > On May 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Michael Catanzaro  
> > wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:47 PM, Yusuke Suzuki  wrote:
> >> 1. We can use GCC 7
> >> 2. We can use libstdc++7
> >> Is my understanding correct? Basically, this means that we can use cool 
> >> C++17 features super aggressively :)
> > 
> > I would say you can use cool C++ 17 features cautiously, enjoying those 
> > features when they work, and expecting the possibility of libstdc++7 bugs 
> > causing them to not work.
> > 
> > I think our EWS bots are not yet on GCC 7, but that should be addressed 
> > soon.
> > 
> > Michael
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > webkit-dev mailing list
> > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Michael Catanzaro]

Alex already switched all WebKit ports to building with C++17 enabled 
in https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197131.


On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:25 PM, Sam Weinig  wrote:
If the issue is getting these bots updated, can we do that? Are there 
any other bots that might need updating as well?


We've previously agreed that we can increase the GCC version limit to 
GCC 7, but nobody ever implemented this. Reported 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198914.


The easiest way to sniff out which bots should be upgraded is to just 
land the change and see which bots break. But I'll ask internally to 
ensure all remaining Igalia bots are upgraded to GCC 7 soon.


Be aware that while GCC 7 has basic support for structured bindings, 
there are limitations documented at 
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html which are not supported 
until GCC 8.


Michael


___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Sam Weinig]

Did we ever land on conclusion here? 

I tried to use c++17 structured bindings (see 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198905) and it looks like most of the 
EWS bots are ok with it, but the jsc-mips and jsc-armv7 bots are not into it.  
Looking at the output, it seems like those bots may still be using GCC 6.4.0 
(but I could be wrong here).

If the issue is getting these bots updated, can we do that? Are there any other 
bots that might need updating as well?

- Sam

> On May 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Michael Catanzaro  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:47 PM, Yusuke Suzuki  wrote:
>> 1. We can use GCC 7
>> 2. We can use libstdc++7
>> Is my understanding correct? Basically, this means that we can use cool 
>> C++17 features super aggressively :)
> 
> I would say you can use cool C++ 17 features cautiously, enjoying those 
> features when they work, and expecting the possibility of libstdc++7 bugs 
> causing them to not work.
> 
> I think our EWS bots are not yet on GCC 7, but that should be addressed soon.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:47 PM, Yusuke Suzuki  
wrote:

1. We can use GCC 7
2. We can use libstdc++7

Is my understanding correct? Basically, this means that we can use 
cool C++17 features super aggressively :)


I would say you can use cool C++ 17 features cautiously, enjoying those 
features when they work, and expecting the possibility of libstdc++7 
bugs causing them to not work.


I think our EWS bots are not yet on GCC 7, but that should be addressed 
soon.


Michael


___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Konstantin Tokarev]

11.05.2019, 02:47, "Yusuke Suzuki" :
> Cool! So,
>
> 1. We can use GCC 7
> 2. We can use libstdc++7
>
> Is my understanding correct? Basically, this means that we can use cool C++17 
> features super aggressively :)

Not so aggressively with library features, a few of them require libstdc++ 8 or 
even 9[1]. However, there is portable
implementation of std::filesystem [2] which we could use as a "polyfill" if 
needed.

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/status.html#status.iso.2017
[2] https://github.com/gulrak/filesystem
-- 
Regards,
Konstantin

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Yusuke Suzuki]

Cool! So,

1. We can use GCC 7
2. We can use libstdc++7

Is my understanding correct? Basically, this means that we can use cool C++17 
features super aggressively :)

Best regards,
Yusuke Suzuki

> On May 7, 2019, at 1:14 PM, Michael Catanzaro  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 1:46 PM, Konstantin Tokarev  wrote:
>> Note that since we have to support libstdc++ 6.x, most of C++17 standard
>> library features () should be disallowed. Those include std::filesystem,
>> std::string_view, etc. Core language features should be fine.
> 
> With my suggested one-time exception to drop support for Debian Stretch early 
> due to lack of security updates there, I think it's perfectly fine to require 
> libstdc++ 7 now. Igalia's EWS and stable release bots might need to be 
> updated, but this is not a problem.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 1:46 PM, Konstantin Tokarev  
wrote:
Note that since we have to support libstdc++ 6.x, most of C++17 
standard
library features () should be disallowed. Those include 
std::filesystem,

std::string_view, etc. Core language features should be fine.


With my suggested one-time exception to drop support for Debian Stretch 
early due to lack of security updates there, I think it's perfectly 
fine to require libstdc++ 7 now. Igalia's EWS and stable release bots 
might need to be updated, but this is not a problem.


Michael


___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 1:53 PM, Alex Christensen 
 wrote:
If you have a minimum-requirements system that you want to keep 
building, put build infrastructure on build.webkit.org so we can see 
when things break.


We already have stable release bots to test the lowest-supported 
configurations, but most developers should only ever need to worry 
about EWS, as always.


Michael


___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Alex Christensen]

If you have a minimum-requirements system that you want to keep building, put 
build infrastructure on build.webkit.org so we can see when things break.

We plan to actively push to update requirements again in 2021.

> On May 7, 2019, at 11:46 AM, Konstantin Tokarev  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 07.05.2019, 16:53, "Michael Catanzaro" :
>> Since there were no objections, I've updated the policy on the wiki:
>> 
>> https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/DependenciesPolicy
>> https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/GCCRequirement
> 
> Note that since we have to support libstdc++ 6.x, most of C++17 standard
> library features () should be disallowed. Those include std::filesystem, 
> std::string_view, etc. Core language features should be fine.
> -- 
> Regards,
> Konstantin
> 

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Konstantin Tokarev]

07.05.2019, 16:53, "Michael Catanzaro" :
> Since there were no objections, I've updated the policy on the wiki:
>
> https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/DependenciesPolicy
> https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/GCCRequirement

Note that since we have to support libstdc++ 6.x, most of C++17 standard
library features () should be disallowed. Those include std::filesystem, 
std::string_view, etc. Core language features should be fine.
-- 
Regards,
Konstantin

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Michael Catanzaro]

Since there were no objections, I've updated the policy on the wiki:

https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/DependenciesPolicy
https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/GCCRequirement

Michael


___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:50 AM, Konstantin Tokarev 
 wrote:
[1] says: "we support each major Debian version until one year after 
the release of the next major version"


Given that Buster is not released yet, bumping GCC requirement to 7 
seems to be premature.


The dependencies policy states that toolchains are only supported until 
the release of the next major version, but yes, the Debian Buster 
release has not happened yet and is likely still several months away.


Still, it's been two weeks since Alex proposed to require GCC 7, and no 
objections have been posted to this list. After talking with Berto, 
I've confirmed that Debian is OK with building packages with Clang if 
need be, and if it works for Debian it should work for Ubuntu as well. 
So instead of requiring that WebKit build with the default system 
compiler, we can just require that it build with *some* system compiler.


We do need to support the distro's libstdc++ for the full year after 
the next release, though, as otherwise it won't be possible for the 
distros to continue to update WebKit. The current policy language 
regarding toolchains does not account for that. So I'd like to simplify 
this by saying that we support some system compiler for one year after 
the release of the next major version, but not necessarily the default 
system compiler.


My proposed changes to 
https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/DependenciesPolicy are:


Keep:

"""
Our dependencies policy is simple:

* We support each major Debian version until one year after the 
release of the next major version.
* We support each Ubuntu LTS until one year after the release of the 
next Ubuntu LTS.

"""

Then replace all the rest with:

"""
During the support period, we intend for WebKit to remain buildable on 
these distributions using some system-provided compiler, not 
necessarily the default system compiler, and with the default system 
libstdc++. The purpose of this policy is to ensure distributions can 
provide updated versions of WebKit during the support period to ensure 
users receive security updates.

"""

Now, those changes would imply that we can require GCC 7 now, but not 
yet libstdc++ 7, since the policy would normally require that we 
continue supporting Debian Stretch for another year. But we can make a 
one-time decision to ignore that, because Stretch isn't receiving 
WebKit security updates, so it doesn't really matter. Now, good news: 
Debian Buster will be the first version to receive WebKit updates, 
thanks to our promises of stable dependencies and Ubuntu's success with 
providing WebKit updates during the last two years. The goal of 
providing security updates to Debian will fail if we drop support for 
Debian's libstdc++ within their primary security support period (one 
year after release of the next version), though; that would be a major 
setback. So my proposed change makes it easier to increase our GCC 
requirement (if the old distros can build with old clang, then we can 
do it), but harder to increase our libstdc++ requirement (need to wait 
one additional year to do so).


The proposed future would look like this:

* Imminently: require GCC 7 and libstdc++ 7
* April 2021: require libstdc++ 8 (one year after Ubuntu 20.04 release)
* Late 2021 or early 2022: require libstdc++ 9 (one year after the 
successor to Debian Buster is released)


Then we can require new GCCs whenever we want, as long as the old 
clangs suffice. Ubuntu 18.04 has clang 6.0, for instance, so as long as 
clang 6.0 works, then we can advance to GCC 8 whenever desired. Debian 
Buster has clang 7.0, so come April 2021 we'd be able to require that. 
But one of the system compilers would need to work for the full three 
years. Then the long support period for libstdc++ is required to make 
sure our users don't get cut off from security updates. There's no way 
around that: if we want to require newer standard libraries, then our 
users will no longer receive updates, period.


Is this OK?

OTOH, GCC 6 has partial support of C++17 [2,3] under -std=c++1z, 
which might be sufficient for now.


Beware that GCC 9, released yesterday, is the first version in which 
C++ 17 support is no longer experimental. Most things should work in 
GCC/libstdc++ 7, but as always, there's going to be bugs that we're 
going to have to live with.


Michael


___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Konstantin Tokarev]

20.04.2019, 01:16, "Alex Christensen" :
> It’s always fun to reply to two year old emails.
>
> I would like to have a plan to start using and requiring C++17 in WebKit. 
> Based on my minimal research, I believe that DebianBuster is frozen but not 
> yet released. Is there something we are still waiting for, or could we begin 
> making the switch?

[1] says: "we support each major Debian version until one year after the 
release of the next major version"

Given that Buster is not released yet, bumping GCC requirement to 7 seems to be 
premature.

OTOH, GCC 6 has partial support of C++17 [2,3] under -std=c++1z, which might be 
sufficient for now.

[1] https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/DependenciesPolicy
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx17
[3] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/status.html#status.iso.2017

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Alex Christensen]

I’m interpreting the lack of objection to mean there is no reason not to 
proceed with https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197131 once I get 
everything working nicely.

> On Apr 19, 2019, at 3:16 PM, Alex Christensen  wrote:
> 
> It’s always fun to reply to two year old emails.
> 
> I would like to have a plan to start using and requiring C++17 in WebKit.  
> Based on my minimal research, I believe that DebianBuster is frozen but not 
> yet released.  Is there something we are still waiting for, or could we begin 
> making the switch?
> 
>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Michael Catanzaro  wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Yusuke SUZUKI  wrote:
>>> Possibly, mcatanzaro and clopez know much about WebKitGTK+ compiler 
>>> dependencies.
>> 
>> As a result of the C++14 discussion on this list a few months ago, we 
>> relaxed our dependencies policy [1] to allow upgrading to GCC 5 one year 
>> earlier than planned, to the displeasure of some of our distributors who now 
>> have to build a custom compiler as part of their WebKit builds. We would 
>> prefer not to relax the policy further.
>> 
>> Our current schedule looks like:
>> 
>> * GCC 6 could be required in April 2018 (next Ubuntu LTS release)
>> * GCC 7 (required for C++17) could be required likely late in 2019 (next 
>> Debian stable release)
>> 
>> Is that acceptable for Apple?
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> [1] https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/DependenciesPolicy
>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Alex Christensen]

It’s always fun to reply to two year old emails.

I would like to have a plan to start using and requiring C++17 in WebKit.  
Based on my minimal research, I believe that DebianBuster is frozen but not yet 
released.  Is there something we are still waiting for, or could we begin 
making the switch?

> On Aug 4, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Michael Catanzaro  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Yusuke SUZUKI  wrote:
>> Possibly, mcatanzaro and clopez know much about WebKitGTK+ compiler 
>> dependencies.
> 
> As a result of the C++14 discussion on this list a few months ago, we relaxed 
> our dependencies policy [1] to allow upgrading to GCC 5 one year earlier than 
> planned, to the displeasure of some of our distributors who now have to build 
> a custom compiler as part of their WebKit builds. We would prefer not to 
> relax the policy further.
> 
> Our current schedule looks like:
> 
> * GCC 6 could be required in April 2018 (next Ubuntu LTS release)
> * GCC 7 (required for C++17) could be required likely late in 2019 (next 
> Debian stable release)
> 
> Is that acceptable for Apple?
> 
> Michael
> 
> [1] https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/DependenciesPolicy
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[JF Bastien]

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 07:38, Michael Catanzaro  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:32 PM, JF Bastien  wrote:
>> Hello again WebKitten!
>> 
>> April 2018 is fast approaching, which means that we might be able to require 
>> GCC 6 and all the great C++17 features that´ll come with it. So what say you?
>> From C++17 it looks like we wouldn´t get quite a few things, but we´d be 
>> able to use a few nice things (see the table 
>> ).
>> 
>> JF
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've been asking around, and it sounds like this will be a significant 
> inconvenience for some Igalia projects where upgrading the compiler is a bit 
> difficult, but everyone agrees the time specified in the dependencies policy 
> (the next Ubuntu LTS release) is fast approaching, and that the policy is a 
> good compromise. It looks like the next Ubuntu release is due on April 26 
> [1], one month from today, so we should be good to require GCC 6 at that 
> time. Sound good?
> 
> Michael
> 
> [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BionicBeaver/ReleaseSchedule 
> 
Thanks! I’d be very happy to bring a few new features in! Let’s see if anyone 
else wants to chime in by then :-)___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:32 PM, JF Bastien  wrote:

Hello again WebKitten!

April 2018 is fast approaching, which means that we might be able to 
require GCC 6 and all the great C++17 features that’ll come with 
it. So what say you?
From C++17 it looks like we wouldn’t get quite a few things, but 
we’d be able to use a few nice things (see the table).


JF


Hi,

I've been asking around, and it sounds like this will be a significant 
inconvenience for some Igalia projects where upgrading the compiler is 
a bit difficult, but everyone agrees the time specified in the 
dependencies policy (the next Ubuntu LTS release) is fast approaching, 
and that the policy is a good compromise. It looks like the next Ubuntu 
release is due on April 26 [1], one month from today, so we should be 
good to require GCC 6 at that time. Sound good?


Michael

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BionicBeaver/ReleaseSchedule
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Yusuke SUZUKI  
wrote:
Possibly, mcatanzaro and clopez know much about WebKitGTK+ compiler 
dependencies.


As a result of the C++14 discussion on this list a few months ago, we 
relaxed our dependencies policy [1] to allow upgrading to GCC 5 one 
year earlier than planned, to the displeasure of some of our 
distributors who now have to build a custom compiler as part of their 
WebKit builds. We would prefer not to relax the policy further.


Our current schedule looks like:

* GCC 6 could be required in April 2018 (next Ubuntu LTS release)
* GCC 7 (required for C++17) could be required likely late in 2019 
(next Debian stable release)


Is that acceptable for Apple?

Michael

[1] https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKitGTK/DependenciesPolicy

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[Yusuke SUZUKI]

I really like C++17, `if with initializer` is super great. Awesome
constexpr lambda and if.
And std::optional and std::variant...

However, IIRC, WebKitGTK+ needs to support some old compilers.
The current GCC support is 5.0.0, which is recently upgraded.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174155

Possibly, mcatanzaro and clopez know much about WebKitGTK+ compiler
dependencies.

Regards,
Yusuke Suzuki

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:39 AM, JF Bastien  wrote:

> Hello WebKilters,
>
> Our Chrome-y friends are considering the use of C++14
> .
> I have to say that C++14 in WebKit has been *quite amazing*, and we
> should consider using C++17: it has many wonderful new things
> ,
> some of which we already use through WTF’s re-implementation of library
> features. By now (table as witness
> ) most C++17 languages
> features are in clang and GCC, and MSVC isn’t doing too bad either.
> Language things can just come through WTF if we really want them.
>
> So how about it?
>
> JF
>
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
>
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

[webkit-dev] C++17 is here. Should we use it?

[JF Bastien]

Hello WebKilters,

Our Chrome-y friends are considering the use of C++14 
.
 I have to say that C++14 in WebKit has been quite amazing, and we should 
consider using C++17: it has many wonderful new things 
, some of 
which we already use through WTF’s re-implementation of library features. By 
now (table as witness ) most 
C++17 languages features are in clang and GCC, and MSVC isn’t doing too bad 
either. Language things can just come through WTF if we really want them.

So how about it?

JF___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev