On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:23 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 05:10 Nicholas Krause, <xerofo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > I asked about moving to C/C++ 11 as it would make it easier to > > > > allow multithreading support due to having a memory model > > > > alongside other features. Jason Merill mentioned due to it > > > > being so common it may be a good time to. > > > > Moving to git seems to be universally agree on so I'm opening the discussion > > > > for the same as related to C/C++11 migration and if possible opening > > > > a TODO similar to git if decided on. > > > > Please post your comments or ideas about the migration in response to this > > > > email, > > > > For a start, it doesn't make sense to talk about C/C++11. > > C and C++ are separate languages, and so are C11 and C++11. There is > no reason why using C++11 should imply using C11, let's not confuse > things. > > GCC is written in C++ so the topic should be C++11.
Note the main issue is host compiler support. I'm not sure if C++11 would be the step we'd gain most - for some hashtable issues I'd have needed std::move support for example. There's always the possibility to require an intermediate step (first build GCC 5, with that you can build trunk, etc.), a install.texi clarification could be useful here (or even some automation via a contrib/ script). I'm not too worried about requiring even a C++14 compiler, for the set of products we still release latest compilers we have newer GCCs available we can use for building them (even if those are not our primary supported compilers which would limit us to GCC 4.8). Note I'd still not like to see more C++ feature creep into general non-container/infrastructure code, C++ is complex enough as-is. Richard.
