On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 01:33:06AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2...@5:47 PM, Joe Buck<joe.b...@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2...@03:19:19PM -0700, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> > * Test starting the bootstrap with earlier versions of the compiler to
> >> > see which C++ compiler version is required, and document that.
> >>
> >> I think the right approach is not documenting observations like that, but
> >> investigating the causes of failures with older compilers and making it
> >> build with as wide a range of versions of GCC (and idea...@least one
> >> non-GCC C++ compiler, probably an EDG-based one such as the Intel
> >> compiler) as is reasonable.
> >
> > Microsoft's and Sun's compilers would be more likely to run into issues,
> > particularly Sun's; Sun has had a policy of preferring solid backward
> > compatibility to standards compliance, so I've tended to have more
> > problems getting correct, standard C++ to run on their compiler than on
> > others. This is particularly true of template-based code and nested
> > classes.
>
> Yes, but I also think that we should aim for a conservative subset
> of C++ -- that is solid enough for the last decade. I don't pretend
> that is an easy task, but I believe that can only help us.
>
> -- Gaby
>
>
Certainly the minimum version of gcc required for compiling with the
cxx support should be well defined. On Mac OS X for instance, the ppl
required for the graphite support in gcc >= 4.4 doesn't compile with
Apple's g++-4.0.1 compilers and requires their g++-4.2.1 compilers
instead.
Jack
