On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:11:34 GMT, Thomas Stuefe <stu...@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". I'm going to ignore that rather insulting language. > 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. Well, hold on. You're implying that going to C++17 allows us to synchronize the code base at C++17. Sure, it does, but it's important also to discuss the pitfalls. And one of those pitfalls is that the system I'm typing this message on — still in support — won't be able to build the JDK without my first finding or building gcc 10 for it. > 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. As the proposer of this change, the onus is on you to show the benefit. Certainly there are C++17 advantages, such as hex float constants. better templates, and so on. I guess the discussion of such advantages must have taken place elsewhere because it's not on the https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8314488 either. To be clear: I do not object to this PR. I would like to use C++17. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14988#issuecomment-1947960141
