Start up and discover how to isolate “resting trends”, buy them, and watch them snap back to life
Hi There! Email: g...@gnu.org Our international company consists of around 60 Internet projects related to crypto currencies and ICO. Now we recruit staff from around the world. CLICK HERE TO START Starting salary $664k per year e-workers WANTED! - No Special Skills Required - No Previous Work Experience Required - No Crypto Trading Experience Required Our Requirements: >> Internet access >> Computer knowledge >> A 2-5 hours of free time daily >> Sharp Mind Average income is $798 per day, part-time, no set hours. At the moment there are 20 vacancy left. CLICK HERE TO START Regards, Declan Riley HR Department Unsubscribe ArcaMax Publishing, Inc., 729 Thimble Shoals Blvd., Suite 1-B, Newport News, VA 23606
RE: GCC selftest improvements
> > 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 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.
Re: GCC selftest improvements
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +, 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
Re: GCC selftest improvements
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:01:43PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +, 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.) What would be the advantage of bumping the requirement now as opposed to at the start of next stage 1 though? We should be fixing bugs now, not introduce new features nor do code refactoring. Jakub
gcc-8-20191122 is now available
Snapshot gcc-8-20191122 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20191122/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-8-branch revision 278634 You'll find: gcc-8-20191122.tar.xzComplete GCC SHA256=0733182697554b4ecd63c5eb82d3718b98574bb64d4fd14a7835ac612307fa86 SHA1=e7c9a6e52539368a6e37a82c0050bc7893d8e956 Diffs from 8-20191115 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-8 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
Re: GCC selftest improvements
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:01:43PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +, 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.) > > What would be the advantage of bumping the requirement now as opposed to at > the start of next stage 1 though? We should be fixing bugs now, not > introduce new features nor do code refactoring. Oh, I meant for GCC 11, of course. I thought we all agreed on that. Segher
