On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 19:08:08 GMT, Kim Barrett <kbarr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> Have you tested with gcc 9? Or is this just supposition based on gcc9 >>> having removed the experimental >> status for C++17? >> >> I have not tested GCC 8 and 9. @sviswa7 seems to test them. >> >>> I have verified that with the above change the builds (release, fastdebug, >>> slowdebug) all succeed with GCC 8.4.0 as well as prior GCC like GCC7.5.0 >>> and the test/jdk/java/util/Arrays/Sorting.java passes successfully with >>> these builds. >> >> Thanks for your tests. But from the description of the [GCC >> document](https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html), shown below, it may >> be good to skip GCC 8 and use GCC 9 directly if we want to switch to C++17. >> >>> Some C++17 features are available since GCC 5, but support was >>> experimental and the ABI of C++17 features was not stable until GCC 9. >> >> What do you think about it? > >> @lgxbslgx We would like to keep GCC 8.4.0 as the minimum. > > Why? That's likely going to be in conflict with > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/14988. > @kimbarrett I meant to say that since the libsimdsort works with GCC 8.4.0, > the #define guard in libsimdsort sources could be restricted to just that and > we don't have to artificially raise it to GCC 9. Do you think that is an > issue? I don't think we should be depending on an experimental compiler feature when there are alternatives. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17047#issuecomment-1863608489
