On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:16 AM Alan Carroll
<solidwallofc...@oath.com.invalid> wrote:

> We're already building on some platforms with C++17, so I don't think we'll
> need to do any code updates. The goal is to make future coding easier by
>
> 1) Removing string_view and ink_std_compat.h
> 2) Enable use of C++17 headers like string_view and file_system.
> 3) Have a single consistent C++ standard (instead of the 11/14/17/ mix).
>
>
So it sounds like there is some plan to unify under C++17 instead of just
allowing organic code growth. I can get on board with that.


> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:43 AM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On May 7, 2018, at 4:10 PM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 9:07 AM Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I would like to propose that we move to C++17 for ATS 8.0.0.  This
> > would
> > > >> require us to move to gcc 7, clang 5, and icc 18 as minimum versions
> > for
> > > >> C++17 support.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > What does this move our minimum EL distro to? Can we still use 6?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, since we went to C++11 a while ago, we already had to give up on
> > the
> > > CentOS6 native tool chain (so, for the last year or so, we’ve already
> > > required Devtoolset to be used). This
> >
> >
> > Yeah, this seems fine to me.
> >
> >
> > > change would force us to update to devtoolset-7 on RHEL platforms, and
> > > might make some older debian platforms impossible to support in any
> > > reasonable way (which I’m ok with).
> > >
> > >
> > How do the debian package maintainers feel about that?
> >
> > Do we plan to have concerted efforts to go through the code and update to
> > C++17 paradigms? Or is this to make the new coding work easier?
> >
> > I plan on writing some instructions for getting toolchains setup for the
> > > platforms where it is possible.
> > >
> > > +1 from me btw.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > — Leif
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to