On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:21 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote: > > > Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" <jos...@codesourcery.com>: > > > > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote: > > > > > > > What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ? > > > > > > I believe we agreed in a previous discussion to aim for building with the > > > intersection of C++98/C++03 and C++ as supported by GCC 3.4 (including > > > making sure at an appropriate point that it builds with a non-GCC > > > compiler, probably an EDG-based one such as the Intel compiler). Though > > > bearing in mind that PPL doesn't build with GCC before 4.0, the GCC > > > version required for building with GCC might increase (though I think > > > increasing beyond 4.1 would be a bad idea for some time yet). > > > > I think we should distinguish here between the language we want to support > > for bootstrapping versus the language we want to be use for builds in > > general > > to allow convenient type checking, and to support configurations that > > are not essential for bootstrapping, like ones with multiple target > > architectures. > > The question is not just one for bootstrapping a native compiler but also > one of what compiler can be used to build a cross compiler (such as that > with multiple targets), which is not bootstrapped in the usual GCC sense. > There we presently document GCC 2.95 or later as required (and again I > think requiring a version later than 4.1 would be a bad idea). >
GCC (at least, the C port of it) is supposed to be compilable with any ISO C90 compiler; when did this change? Or are you saying that if you are using GCC you need at least 2.95. R.
