Re: C++ conversion status update
Pedro Alves <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 12/14/2015 07:09 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 12/14/2015 02:40 PM, Yao Qi wrote: >> Pedro Alves <[email protected]> writes: > > >> We need a wiki page to track these hosts on which we enabled C++ build. >> Like this gcc wiki page, https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppBuildStatus or we >> can track them in existing https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/cxx-conversion >> wiki page. > > Ok. > >> >>> The plan I propose next is to default to building in C++ mode on hosts >>> that are known to build cleanly in C++ mode. Or rather, change the default >>> to be C++ mode, _except_ for hosts/ports that haven't been converted >>> yet. >> >> I prefer the latter. >> >>> Then, as ports get converted, one by one they'll be removed from >>> the "can't do C++ yet" list. That gives us a defined stopping point -- when >>> the list becomes empty, and after a reasonable period, we can decide to remove >>> support for building in C mode and start making use of C++ features. >> >> That sounds good to me. > > Ok, that's my preference as well. > >> >>> >>> The question I have is which hosts (Architecture + OS combination) people >>> care about that still need C++ conversion work and thus should be on >>> that list? >> >> How about all linux and mingw hosts? assuming that xtensa can be >> converted. > > x86-64 and x86 mingw built cleanly last I tried. > > I don't know about _all_ Linux hosts, hence the RFH. > > At least x86, x86_64, Aarch64, ARM, and PPC64 build cleanly. Or did, a > few weeks back. > >>> >>> This is where anyone can help! >>> >>> I've created the "users/palves/cxx-conversion" branch (on sourceware.org) >>> where I committed a patch that implements the list idea. I filled in >>> a set of hosts that I _thought_ wouldn't build, but I don't really know >>> for sure. >>> >>> So I'd like to invite people to try to build master on their favorite >>> host with --enable-build-with-cxx, and report back the result. >> >> We didn't hear anything on this yet, but we can't wait for it forever. > > Yeah. I got enthusiastic support offlist for C++ in general, but people > don't seem to really be that interested or paying attention to random > host architectures. > Now that the "exceptions signals handlers" issue is resolved, I think we've now done all we could re. C++ conversion while keeping C supported as well. I think the time has come to starting to default to building in C++ mode on all hosts, except those known to not having been fully converted yet, as with the patch at the top of the users/palves/cxx-conversion branch. Thoughts? Thanks, Pedro Alves