From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Thu Oct 5 23:28:46 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E94E45570 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 23:28:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E27F66357 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 23:28:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 7A3EDE4556F; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 23:28:46 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FE6E4556E for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 23:28:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3505B66356 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 23:28:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id h66so14751057ioh.11 for ; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:28:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6AxReQyTjPW4CxXFicaMK2OMFx34A9x+gRXKod1ldfM=; b=XPd4D4dkYnaTq9TIRIo0vdKdj33MZl1V5EO9+8BNEPmgBGJQSoZvBLnUlzn2vpEWxI xwizXGSeN3bgW+h4CFakCzSCUa6EuNa+AViSRN99vyeF7kz0g1r1+rMydxPptG69nwRa aB6/k6huNWXLCcdlG/ZKV6KSP9SXf+fdNT2A2BcUD2KGPSySAAq5au4U53vyRmDJHBu9 h5+2M7BFxMjn+8CHgE9LpabUnTTPKXdu7vYiFV5UbF2FMZ4D9E6JX4tYZHLcEeOgXtVJ RE8TZ6xRwlUVm/9uCEglWm76ySrVNoO8uKeX5LPhpS449ol2PZTOeckiMkXk/ZY8I4MZ iIEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=6AxReQyTjPW4CxXFicaMK2OMFx34A9x+gRXKod1ldfM=; b=FcnzgzMVwJ6YB73fd/nYsTO3HgKJY/x9zWF9gr2TOqYOWTEiG7TjeKf+SMInxG4nM0 Rb7afwvs/dEJJQhntE1LFQ3LkXJXD271zZXhHlo8O9UAcK8olCs+pO318+5lw4j31f4G JbD+XZbOfHXR6PZJhE0Wy/jVX5MqoZee94zUOonsMKyfCxFy3qEUmuIhEnMz3+MvCDJH j6287IqfptBLRMYYcLE2dlkx+uq7GaK9gg/C/WkLT+Wppg24o38MHkWX1vrQyEUkalMV j4Qm5MgOzY4H+64wcDB+rlKzHFYUg7s0IvU3EO2zrI7p5vH64O7xNiEwCJlyS1K0Q/ue k5Fg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXuat5Cwtk/VFBp7UhmJ1yc9xA3qC7PXNpNn75OOnfdtY9IzOtN /nYLdpJ579ngArG86fTKTCA05ULO0UztQgV43ubJnQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAqjLSsZmeJ2znl/vYXsFWfqgXXbfMUVsnuLwccod7JEqumn1JYxu8sueymJ7r2SQvFfuTMkVHsnlBvimqxyog= X-Received: by 10.107.16.162 with SMTP id 34mr319346ioq.169.1507246125394; Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:28:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.94.130 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:28:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2607:fb10:7021:1::5304] From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:28:44 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eVljSPz35mpat2-PG2fB60mj40E Message-ID: Subject: Making C++11 a hard requirement for FreeBSD To: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 23:28:46 -0000 I'd like to start a conversation about the viability of making C++11 a hard requirement for bootstrapping FreeBSD and setting a specific deadline for doing so. This discussion is motivated by an ask from the jemalloc folks to use a limited subset of C++11 inside of malloc in such a way that is C safe (so the C programs wouldn't bloat with a C++ runtime). That's an ongoing discussion in another forum, and isn't appropriate for this thread because this has become a frequent request (but if you have opinions, please find the thread in current@ about it). I don't know the timeline of their plans to do this. I'd like to take the rather vague plans we've had "before 12" and create a timeline for removal of gcc 4.2 coupled with a requirement for support in clang or a working external toolchain. This requirement would be coupled with the requirement that the external toolchain support C++11 constructs. I'd like to propose we do this 12/31/17. Any architectures that can't meet this timeline will be disconnected from universe at that time and deleted 3/31/18. It's my belief that i386, amd64, arm, aarch64, powerpc and powerpc64 are ready for this change and mips* would be ready for this change with an external clang toolchain. I'm unsure of riscv and sparc64, but suspect that a newer version of gcc as an external toolchain could work. Comments? Warner