Re: [squid-dev] More woes with ubuntu-precise
On 08/13/2015 09:29 AM, Kinkie wrote: >EnumIterator has brought out one more issue with ubuntu-precise: > since it carries gcc-4.6, it doesn't support std::underlying_type. > The options are: > - drop support for precise in trunk. We claim to need gcc 4.8 anyway I am confused: If GCC v4.8 is required, then why are you asking about a Ubuntu release that comes with GCC v4.6? Does it imply that we were only pretending to require GCC v4.8 and now may actually have to start requiring it? > - not to use std::underlying_type and blindly use int. > - do template metaprogramming to detect std::underlying_type, fall back > to int if not possible > - use autoconf > > 3. and 4. are quite crazy IMO but I mentioned them for completeness' sake. > Any opinion on 1. and 2.? If we do not truly require GCC v4.8 yet, then I like #2 because it is simple and sufficient. [ If you have to replace std::underlying_type::type with "int" more than once, ] please add a named type so that it is easy to find such replacements. Do not just use "int" directly. typedef underlying_enum_type int; HTH, Alex. ___ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
Re: [squid-dev] More woes with ubuntu-precise
On 14/08/2015 10:18 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 08/13/2015 09:29 AM, Kinkie wrote: > >>EnumIterator has brought out one more issue with ubuntu-precise: >> since it carries gcc-4.6, it doesn't support std::underlying_type. > > >> The options are: >> - drop support for precise in trunk. We claim to need gcc 4.8 anyway > > I am confused: If GCC v4.8 is required, then why are you asking about a > Ubuntu release that comes with GCC v4.6? Does it imply that we were only > pretending to require GCC v4.8 and now may actually have to start > requiring it? My thoughts almost the same. The published "requirement" I put up was: " This series of Squid requires a C++11 capable compiler. The currently known compilers which meet this criteria and build Squid reliably are GCC 4.9+, Clang 3.5+, and Intel CC 12.0+ " So its not even 4.8, more of a soft-ish 4.9+. If we have an easy way/wrapper/hack to allow compile on older versions do it still. If Squid happens to build (and work) on 4.8 or 4.6 great. But they are acceptible casualties if there is no choice. Note that Ubuntu will not ever support these newer Squid versions on their LTS anyway. It is entirely our choice and burden whether to support people who want the latest and greatest Squid software to work seamlessly when mixed into an ancient environment. IMO its on their shoulders to see that the dependencies are at least usable. > >> - not to use std::underlying_type and blindly use int. >> - do template metaprogramming to detect std::underlying_type, fall back >> to int if not possible >> - use autoconf >> >> 3. and 4. are quite crazy IMO but I mentioned them for completeness' sake. >> Any opinion on 1. and 2.? > > > If we do not truly require GCC v4.8 yet, then I like #2 because it is > simple and sufficient. > > [ If you have to replace std::underlying_type::type with "int" > more than once, ] please add a named type so that it is easy to find > such replacements. Do not just use "int" directly. > > typedef underlying_enum_type int; > Agreed. Amos ___ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
Re: [squid-dev] More woes with ubuntu-precise
On 08/13/2015 10:52 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 14/08/2015 10:18 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On 08/13/2015 09:29 AM, Kinkie wrote: >> >>>EnumIterator has brought out one more issue with ubuntu-precise: >>> since it carries gcc-4.6, it doesn't support std::underlying_type. >> >> >>> The options are: >>> - drop support for precise in trunk. We claim to need gcc 4.8 anyway >> >> I am confused: If GCC v4.8 is required, then why are you asking about a >> Ubuntu release that comes with GCC v4.6? Does it imply that we were only >> pretending to require GCC v4.8 and now may actually have to start >> requiring it? > My thoughts almost the same. > > The published "requirement" I put up was: > " > This series of Squid requires a C++11 capable compiler. The currently > known compilers which meet this criteria and build Squid reliably are > GCC 4.9+, Clang 3.5+, and Intel CC 12.0+ > " > > So its not even 4.8, more of a soft-ish 4.9+. I was under impression that we have promised GCC 4.8 support for Squid v4.0. Perhaps I am missing some deliberations with thoughtful justifications, but it feels like we are simply increasing the required GCC version number just because it is convenient for developers, without balancing admin and developer needs. Alex. ___ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
Re: [squid-dev] More woes with ubuntu-precise
On 15/08/2015 3:05 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 08/13/2015 10:52 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> On 14/08/2015 10:18 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >>> On 08/13/2015 09:29 AM, Kinkie wrote: >>> EnumIterator has brought out one more issue with ubuntu-precise: since it carries gcc-4.6, it doesn't support std::underlying_type. >>> >>> The options are: - drop support for precise in trunk. We claim to need gcc 4.8 anyway >>> >>> I am confused: If GCC v4.8 is required, then why are you asking about a >>> Ubuntu release that comes with GCC v4.6? Does it imply that we were only >>> pretending to require GCC v4.8 and now may actually have to start >>> requiring it? > > >> My thoughts almost the same. >> >> The published "requirement" I put up was: >> " >> This series of Squid requires a C++11 capable compiler. The currently >> known compilers which meet this criteria and build Squid reliably are >> GCC 4.9+, Clang 3.5+, and Intel CC 12.0+ >> " >> >> So its not even 4.8, more of a soft-ish 4.9+. > > I was under impression that we have promised GCC 4.8 support for Squid > v4.0. I dont recalla promise for v4. I did promise C++03 support would stay for v3.5. I'm trying for maintenance support as long as possible of that version, but no promise since I can't actually guarantee it will be possible. > Perhaps I am missing some deliberations with thoughtful > justifications, but it feels like we are simply increasing the required > GCC version number just because it is convenient for developers, without > balancing admin and developer needs. The admin "need" that keeps being put forward is stability. With the meaning of "non-changing.". As in; nobody touches the Squid code from now until 2020 or so. We already provide versions of Squid that meet that criteria. They are called version 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. Depending on which year and feature set the admin wants to use. They are supported by the distros offering guarantees of non-change stability. We are increasing it for several reasons; One of which is that the world has already moved on to GCC and Clang versions where C++11 is the default and actually C++14 the preferred language now. NP: That loosely includes Ubuntu and RHEL 7 whose current LTS supply GCC-4.8 by default and better versions via "unofficial" packages. Another important reason is the code safety features that are only available in C++11. Another is the code simplification which is only available in C++11. That aids us a LOT with readability. But even more importantly simplifies the code for attracting new developers. Another is our decision to move custom algorithms to STL and std:: based logic. It is all very well using that for performance, but the gains are mostly through C++11 STL improvements. C++03 builds are somewhat *worse* as a result. Amos ___ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
Re: [squid-dev] More woes with ubuntu-precise
On 14/08/2015 3:29 a.m., Kinkie wrote: > Hi, >EnumIterator has brought out one more issue with ubuntu-precise: since > it carries gcc-4.6, it doesn't support std::underlying_type. > > The options are: > - drop support for precise in trunk. I've done this anyway to get trunk and snapshots building again after Christos latest patch which uses the virtual "override" keyword Alex and I both agreed we needed to start using. I dont fancy the alternative of adding a blanket "#define override" for old compilers. It could wipe out anything in the system headers. Amos ___ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
Re: [squid-dev] More woes with ubuntu-precise
On 08/18/2015 02:11 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > The admin "need" that keeps being put forward is stability. With the > meaning of "non-changing.". As in; nobody touches the Squid code from > now until 2020 or so. Personally, I have not heard anything like that from any admin. The requirements I have heard are more along the lines of "being able to build the latest Squid release on a still-supported LTS" or "being able to build trunk on the latest LTS". I am not saying we should necessarily satisfy these requirements. I am only saying that they seem a lot more "reasonable" to me than what you said is "being put forward". > We are increasing it for several reasons; > > One of which is that the world has already moved on to GCC and Clang > versions where C++11 is the default and actually C++14 the preferred > language now. This is one of those convenient (for developers!) vague "reasons" that does not define any real boundaries or commitments. As in "we require whatever we feel is reasonable". I am not saying we must have a policy. Just that we should not pretend that we have it, when our version selection decision is based on the ever-present "the world has moved on", "code safety", and "code simplification" reasons. Instead, whenever somebody asks what GCC version will be required to build 4.0, we can just tell them to look it up on the wiki page, but warn them not to expect the answer to be the same tomorrow [until 4.0 is actually released]. > NP: That loosely includes Ubuntu and RHEL 7 whose current LTS supply > GCC-4.8 by default and better versions via "unofficial" packages. Current Ubuntu LTS releases include 12.04 which ships GCC v4.6 by default AFAIK: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases To summarize, for v4.0, do we require GCC v4.8 or do we require GCC v4.9? Or is it more like "we require whatever it takes to compile at the time of the first official release"? Our RoadMap wiki page says 4.9 but 4.8 crops up very often in this thread as being also supported, confusing things. Thank you, Alex. ___ squid-dev mailing list squid-dev@lists.squid-cache.org http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
