On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +0000, Andrew Dean wrote: > > > Many systems do not have a system compiler newer than this *four years > > > old* one. GCC 4.8 is the first GCC version that supports all of > > > C++11, which is the only reason it would be even near acceptable to > > > require something this *new*. > > > > Agreed. Note we're even shipping new service packs for SLE12 which has that > > "ancient" compiler version (OTOH there _is_ a fully supported GCC 9 > > available > > for SLE12 as well). > > > > So, if we want C++11 then fine. But requiring GCC 9+ isn't going to fly. > > IIRC > > GCC 6 is first having -std=c++14 by default, but unless there's a compelling > > reason to use C++14 in GCC I'd rather not do it at this point. > > > > Removing all the workarounds in the tree we have for GCC 4.[12].x would of > > course be nice. > > > > But I have to update the testers that still use GCC 4.1.x as host compiler > > :P
> Richard/Segher: Are we in agreement that we can move forward with updating to > c++11 as the minimum version? I have made the simple change locally to modify > the flag and verified that I got the exact same test results with/without the > change. I can look into the work to add a configuration warning if the > compiler doesn't support c++11, but wanted to make sure we are on the same > page before doing so. If GCC 4.8.5 works as bootstrap compiler, it is fine with me, and good progress too. (Which means 4.8.5 has to work for at least all primary targets.) Some targets may have other concerns though. This needs to be announced widely, and people given time to protest? Segher
