On October 28, 2019 8:40:03 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> [Andrew] >> >> | > GCC has some rather unique requirements, in that we support a >great many >> | > build configurations, some of which are rather primitive - for >example, >> | > requiring just C++98 with exceptions disabled, in that we want to >be able to >> | be >> | > bootstrappable on relatively "ancient" configurations. >> | > IIRC auto-registration of tests requires that the build >configuration have a >> | > sufficiently sane implementation of C++ - having globals with >non-trivial >> | ctors >> | > tends to be problematic when dealing with early implementations >of C++. >> | >> | Is C++98 the limit of what we can use in GCC? If so, that >immediately >> | eliminates Catchv1 (C++03), Catch2 (C++11+) and GTest (C++11) >> >> C++98 was what Diego, Lawrence, Benjamin, Ian, and myself could >agreed to back in 2011-2012 when C++11 got just out as a C++ standard, >so we couldn't pick C++11 as we didn't have enough G++ out there to >count on. >> >> I would expect the situation to have drastically changed - with very >handy and popular features such as 'constexpr' (especially with the >C++14 relaxation), lambdas and range-for. >> >> Jason, Jonathan - is the situation on the terrain really that dire >that C++11 (or C++14) isn't at all available for platforms that GCC is >bootstrapped from? >The argument that I'd make is that's relatively uncommon (I know, I >know >AIX) that bootstrapping in those environments may well require first >building something like gcc-9. > >I'd really like to see us move to C++11 or beyond. Sadly, I don't >think >we have any good mechanism for making this kind of technical decision >when there isn't consensus.
Well, we just do it? Richard. >jeff