| 1 |
Am Mittwoch, 18. Dezember 2013, 08:54:47 schrieb Michał Górny: |
| 2 |
> This raises the following question: how do we want to do it? I see two |
| 3 |
> possibilities: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> a) adding USE=c++11 and USE-deps to all the packages in question, |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> b) doing the switch via synchronous version bump and matching |
| 8 |
> dependencies. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
(snip) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> What are your thoughts? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I have already switched to C++11 on all my projects ages ago. It offers a lot, |
| 15 |
and the incompatibilities are rare at best. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
C++11 is the current standard with the next being worked on already. |
| 18 |
What is the rationale for staying with C++03 or (worse) C++98 in the first |
| 19 |
place? Nothing is gained. Only the need to fix what becomes broken. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
( And a lot breakage can occur from using something like |
| 22 |
#include <tr1/cstdint> |
| 23 |
Instead of the C++11 |
| 24 |
#include <cstdint> |
| 25 |
... Breakages that are trivial to fix ... ) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
And as C++11 is stricter in many places, I consider a program failing to |
| 28 |
compile with -std=c++11 to be broken and buggy per se, and needing to be fixed |
| 29 |
asap anyway. (I consider any C program failing to compile with g++ broken as |
| 30 |
well, allthough the cases might be more complex.) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
So I'd go the reverse way. Make CXXFLAGS="-std=c++11" the default, and only |
| 33 |
override this for packages that do fishy stuff and break with it. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
But of course this must be tested thoroughly first. I have some extra time to |
| 36 |
spare in the first three weeks of january, and I've already planned to do an |
| 37 |
'emerge -e @world' with c++11 as a global default anyway. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Cheers |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Sven |
Archives