On 8/21/16, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> 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... > > So +1 from me, FWIW. :-) > >> >> 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. > > Thanks, > Pedro Alves >
As a rookie programmer considering possibly contributing to GCC in the future once I'm more confident in my abilities, switching to C++11 would increase the barrier for me to contribute. I currently really only know C, and I still have to learn C++ in general, much less all the new features added in C++11. Also, I still occasionally bootstrap with Apple's gcc 4.2.1, which doesn't have C++11 support. That being said, I'd support taking steps to make it easier to optionally compile gcc as C++11 for those that want to do so, such as replacing -Wno-narrowing with -Wnarrowing in the warning flags that gcc uses. Out of curiosity, I tried doing just that, and there were actually fewer new unique warnings than I expected. I've attached a log of them. Eric Gallager
narrowing.log
Description: Binary data
