On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:44:02 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > Sure, you can always install a newer GCC than the system one, but it's > > another thing that makes it harder for people to build OpenJDK. Having said > > that, C++17 is nice to have. > > @theRealAph I am still just hearing hand-waving "perhaps someone somewhere > will have a somewhat harder time building the JDK". Yes, perhaps that is so. > But that is very uncertain, and I have still not heard a single concrete > example of where this would apply. In contrast, going to gcc 10 will clearly > bring a benefit to all other platforms, since it allows us to synchronize the > code base at C++17. > > In light of this, I think we need to hear some really compelling evidence of > problems that would ensue if we raise the minimum to gcc 10. If nobody can > produce such evidence, then to me it is a sign that this fear is not > well-grounded, and we should proceed with this PR. @magicus You put the onus of proving that problems could ensue strictly to the objectors. That is a bit one-sided. I do not see much effort - any, really - put into detailing the motivation for this move, neither in the PR description nor in the JBS issue text. I just read through the whole PR discussion and really the only helpful comment I found was from Kim ( https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14988#issuecomment-1858136247 ). I think important decisions like enforcing C++17 would benefit from a more careful preparation. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14988#issuecomment-1946628523
