On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> [Andrew]
> 
> | > GCC has some rather unique requirements, in that we support a great many
> | > build configurations, some of which are rather primitive - for example,
> | > requiring just C++98 with exceptions disabled, in that we want to be able 
> to
> | be
> | > bootstrappable on relatively "ancient" configurations.
> | > IIRC auto-registration of tests requires that the build configuration 
> have a
> | > sufficiently sane implementation of C++ - having globals with non-trivial
> | ctors
> | > tends to be problematic when dealing with early implementations of C++.
> | 
> | Is C++98 the limit of what we can use in GCC? If so, that immediately
> | eliminates Catchv1 (C++03), Catch2 (C++11+) and GTest (C++11)
> 
> C++98 was what Diego, Lawrence, Benjamin, Ian, and myself could agreed to 
> back in 2011-2012 when C++11 got just out as a C++ standard, so we couldn't 
> pick C++11 as we didn't have enough G++ out there to count on.
> 
> I would expect the situation to have drastically changed - with very handy 
> and popular features such as 'constexpr' (especially with the C++14 
> relaxation), lambdas and range-for.
> 
> Jason, Jonathan - is the situation on the terrain really that dire that C++11 
> (or C++14) isn't at all available for platforms that GCC is bootstrapped from?
The argument that I'd make is that's relatively uncommon (I know, I know
AIX) that bootstrapping in those environments may well require first
building something like gcc-9.

I'd really like to see us move to C++11 or beyond.  Sadly, I don't think
we have any good mechanism for making this kind of technical decision
when there isn't consensus.

jeff

Reply via email to