On 10/28/19 3:52 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:47 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > Just a quick note. > RHEL/CentOS 7 uses GCC 4.8 as the system compiler. Requiring a new > compiler to compile GCC 10 will not work for me. At this point RHEL/CentOS 7 is ancient. Time to move forward IMHO :-)
I can live with an older compiler, but I'd prefer we move forward as much as possible. 4.8 is like living in the stone age. jeff
