* On 2025-04-06 at 13:29 BST, Greg Troxel wrote:
David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:ok then, so what should the FEATURE be called? c++20-gcc10? c++20-lite?I think we first need to fix the problem that c++NN does not mean "full compliance with the standard". Then I think it makes sense to have c++20-gcc10 # because that's what we actually care about c++20-foo # for the foo features *required by c++20, not in gcc10 c++20-bar # for the bar features *required by c++20, not in gcc10
No, just "foo" and "bar", like we already have for the other C++ features we've added support for. None of this should be specific to GCC.
One could add this for clang also, but it's interesting that's not an issue. Perhaps because we aren't trying to support systems with old clang in base, and perhaps because clang's approach raises fewer issues.
Mostly, but we should still architect for OS, architecture, and compiler agnosticism. Software releases and features are only going to keep accelerating, so it's only a matter of time until it becomes a problem (I'm now starting to run into some C++20 issues on my clang 13-based macOS build hosts so probably time I upgraded).
-- Jonathan Perkin pkgsrc.smartos.org Open Source Complete Cloud www.tritondatacenter.com