Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost> writes:
* On 2017-10-11 at 01:34 BST, Greg Troxel wrote:
Or to fail hard if c++11 is in USE_LANGUAGES and < 5.1?
Not < 5.1, I've been very happily using 4.9 for our SmartOS builds for
a long time with no obvious issues, and this would screw me over.
I don't have any problem with considering 4.9 good enough, with the
notion that packages with C++11 that don't work with 4.9 will have
GCC_REQD=5.1, and thus fail non-mysteriously.
However, I think I'm of the opinion that we should just fail hard if
an insufficient compiler is detected. If compiler/gcc.mk has taught
me anything it's that it is vastly over-complicated and a nightmare to
maintain. Adding another layer of complexity and magic on top is just
going to make things worse.
I think pretty much everyone is coming around to that view and we are
now debating what the defaults should be. Does anybody disagree?
I'd prefer we simply abort, tell the user to choose a decent compiler
for all C++ packages, then let them sort things out based on those
requirements and any local preferences they may have.
Agreed - that is basically what my recent complicated note intends.