On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:41:13PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >
> > Which GCC version will be required to work as bootstrap compiler? Will
> > 4.8.5 be enough?
> I'd say gcc-9. What would we gain by making it 4.8 or anything else
> that old?
That is not a good idea, it will make it much harder to build gcc because
not everybody has gcc-9 built as a system compiler.
The previous minimum requirement of 4.1 is perhaps too old now that 4.8 is
something we could require and gain through that C++11 support, but we
shouldn't follow Rust with "you can only build it with 6 weeks old previous
release and nothing else".
As discussed earlier, we gain most through C++11 support, there is no need
to jump to C++17 or C++20 as requirement.
Jakub
