[gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

[Kurt Schwehr]

Checking http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support shows C++11
support starting to take shape starting with gcc 4.3 (but it's missing
almost everything at that point).

Greg,

Can you explain the use case as to what keeps you on an older NetBSD but
unable to use a branch of a recent GDAL?  e.g. I'm am suggesting that we
keep GDAL 2.1 and older to stay with the current requirement of supporting
C++03.

As for boost, my experiences are that would be far more effort support it
on many platforms than getting a working C++11 compiler.  Boost is full of
really awesome code, but there be dragons and really careful consideration
should be made before requiring boost for any code that will have to be
linked against by other libraries.

-kurt

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com> writes:
>
> >> How will that be impacted by a C++11 requirement?
> >
> > GCC 4.8 is needed for C++11 I think. There are folks using recent GDAL
> on older distros like
> > Ubuntu 12.04 (which ships with gcc 4.6). I guess they could switch to
> adding a PPA with a
> > more recent toolchain.
>
> As a datapoint, NetBSD 6, a few years old but still supported, has gcc
> 4.5.  In general, it seems that requiring gcc 4.8 causes a fair bit of
> grief for people.  I find that programs in straight C99 or older C++
> build pretty much everywhere, and C++11 seems to take more effort.
> Probably in 2 years this will be a non-issue.
>
> Another possibility is to look at the features that would make a
> difference and whether they are in boost.  As I somewhat fuzzily
> understand it, much of the smart pointer stuff moved from boost to
> C++11, so gcc 4.5 (or equivalent age clang) and boost may be a less
> troublesome requirement.
>
> Overall, I tend to think foundational support libraries should seek to
> avoid being the thing that pushes someone to have to redo their
> toolchain, and I am afraid that requiring C++11 would put gdal into that
> category.
>
> So, I think it's about how much trouble would be saved, vs imposed.   I
> am not perceiving a lot of trouble from not using C++11 featues on the
> dev list.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>



-- 
--
http://schwehr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20170105/afb1a765/attachment.html>