I support the switch.
Caveat details below...
On 5/12/2022 5:21 am, Francesco Chemolli wrote:
I support the switch
On Sun, 4 Dec 2022 at 16:18, Alex Rousskov wrote:
Hello,
C++17 is supported by popular modern compilers and stable distros.
Squid
master branch should target those IMO. Even old environments can
install
the necessary modern compilers (e.g., RHEL5 users can get them via
Red
Hat Developer Toolset).
* GCC v5 supports most C++17 features.
* GCC v8 supports all relevant C++17 features.
* Clang v5 supports nearly all C++17 features.
* Clang v8 supports all relevant C++17 features.
non-RHEL distros shipping Squid are almost all providing at lease GCC
v8. In many cases even their recently refreshed (Nov 2022) LTS have it.
The RHEL family distros (CentOS 7 in particular, but also many others)
LTS versions only provide LLVM/clang v7 from the C++17 compilers.
So I think we could bump to require GCC v8 or Clang v7 minimum without
much fuss. That would leave us figuring out what (if any) hacks we
needed for the clang v7 vs C++17 feature gaps. Hopefully no worse than
what we have been doing to figure out the GCC 4.8 vs C++11 feature gaps.
It has been a while since I had any info about the RedHat developer
toolset. Do you know if GCC 8+ or LLVM/clang 8+ are in there? if so,
then bump to v8 for both compilers and full speed ahead :-)
Switching to just C++14 would be better than nothing, but it will not
give us several C++17 features that we already waste serious time on
emulating/avoiding (e.g., std::optional). We should not switch to
C++20
yet because modern stable compilers still have some C++20 support
holes.
Agreed, C++14 is not worth the jump, and C++20 is far too early.
[ IMO in general we should leave ~5 years for the distro LTS to catch up
on compilers releases before considering adopting a language update. ]
Cheers
Amos
_______________________________________________
squid-dev mailing list
squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org
http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
