Re: Mandates explicit -std=c++XY for c++ projects
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:25:10 +0200
- From: Matthias Klose <doko@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Mandates explicit -std=c++XY for c++ projects
On 10.10.2017 11:42, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Matthias Klose <doko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10.10.2017 08:45, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> Since the GCC 6 release , the default mode for C++ is now
>>> -std=gnu++14 instead of -std=gnu++98. What this means is that upon
>>> (re)compilation a library written for c++98 will be recompiled using a
>>> different c++ standard (c++14 in this case), unless of course the
>>> upstream package explicitly set the -std= flags with the appropriate
>>> c++ version.
>>> The ISO committee generally describe the change in between different
>>> standards  and in some case, one can find examples of subtle change
>>> in behaviors  and .
>>> With this mind I'd like to make mandatory the -std=c++XY flags when
>>> compiling either a c++ library or a stand-alone c++ program:
>>> 1. Either upstream define the explicit -std=c++XY flags by mean of its
>>> build system,
>>> 2. Or the package maintainers needs to explicit change the CXXFLAGS to
>>> pass the appropriate version of the c++ standard. In which case this
>>> should be documented in the README.Debian file.
>>> 3. As a fallback, dh should initialize the CXXFLAGS with -std=gnu++98
>>> If there is a consensus on the following change, I'll go ahead and
>>> also file a bug for lintian to scan the compilation logs in search for
>>> missing -std=c++ expression when g++ command line are issued.
>> I don't think this is a good idea, and I'm still trying to understand what
>> problem you are trying to solve. It took a while until GCC had stable c++11
>> support, and now you want to fallback to a 20 year old standard by default?
> As said above, this is simply a fallback, I am fine with any value as
> long as I can see it in the log clearly.
> My point was about making the flag *explicit*, whatever value is
> chosen, so that upon recompilation we gets the same symbols, the same
> behavior, no FTBFS (because of deprecated feature).
Various libraries do error out on deprecated functions/macros, which you can
override by preprocessor macros. This is usually done in the package. Why
should that be different for the compiler?
>> It would be better to spend some time to prepare for -std=gnu++17 instead ;)
> So you have no major objection against my proposal,
No, I have objections, because after a while this will become a debt to maintain ...
> I feared you may
> have an issue with mixed combination of stdc++ runtime lib (not sure
> exactly how this is handled at low level).
There's only one runtime library in use. Yes, there are more or less subtle
issues which we address by library package renames for issues we cannot or do
not want to handle by renaming libstdc++ itself. But it's always the same
runtime library used, independent of the standard.