On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:08 AM Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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).
Note that std::move is from C++11. > 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). I wouldn't object to C++14, but there's nothing in there I particularly want to use, so it seems unnecessary. > Note I'd still not like to see more C++ feature creep into general > non-container/infrastructure code, C++ is complex enough as-is. I agree for rvalue references. I want to start using C++11 'auto' in local variable declarations. Jason
