On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 09:00:26PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 08/20/2016 03:29 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Oleg Endo <oleg.e...@t-online.de> wrote: > >> > >> Or just wait until people have agreed to switch to C++11 or C++14. I > >> don't think in practice anybody uses an C++11-incapable GCC to build a > >> newer GCC these days. > > gdb will drop support for building with a C compiler any week > now, and even though we're starting out with C++03, just like gcc, > it'd be great to require C++11 (or later). Having gcc itself > switch to C++11 too would make proposing it for gdb so much > easier...
huh, I would have sort of expected the oposit, if gdb was to require C++11, but gcc didn't then you could still use gdb on antique systems without a C++11 compiler by first building gcc. > So +1 from me, FWIW. :-) I'd mostly agree, at least requiring a compiler with rvalue references would be pretty useful. > > > > I use the system gcc 4.4.7 on RHEL to build a newer cross compiler... I > > could bootstrap a newer native compiler, if I had too. > > > > Yeah. I wonder whether the community would in general be fine with > that too. I personally don't have any machines where the system compiler is that old, but its worth noting the last C++11 features came in 4.8.1 I think and for libstdc++ its even later. Trev > > Thanks, > Pedro Alves >
