Making C++11 a hard requirement for FreeBSD

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

--------
In message <2706092.qpavixPdKK at ralph.baldwin.cx>, John Baldwin writes:

>Hmm, I don't quite agree.  I think it's possible to use a restricted C++
>(no rtti, no exceptions, no STL) such that you are only using language
>features like templates or 'auto' without requiring runtime support.

That's what Bjarne used to call "C++ as a better C compiler".

If the jemalloc crew can stay inside that dotted line _and_ the C++
compilers still allow you to do so, then that could be an "not quite
pregnant yet" option.

>[...]

>Right now the C++ runtime is split into a
>couple of different pieces: libc++ (STL bits, roughly), libcxxrt (rtti
>/ exception support), libgcc_s (either llvm libunwind or gcc for _Unwind_*
>along with intrinsics from compiler-rt).
>[...]
>I think bundling any of those pieces into libc makes our system less
>flexible and different from all the other UNIXy systems currently in
>vogue.

That goes to my point about ld:  The standard doesn't say which
library file which bits of the C++ runtime have to go into, we
get to decide that if we want to, as long as we provide a ld(1)
which knows where to find things.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.