From: Matt Borland (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-12-06 16:26:12
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 7:57 AM Peter Dimov pdimov_at_[hidden] wrote:
>
> > They don't need a rationale. I'm asking their opinions on whether a C++14
> > requirement would be fine for them. Not asking them to speculate whether
> > a C++14 requirement wouldn't be fine for some unspecified other people.
>
>
> When I read "Do people care about C++11 support in hash2" I interpret
> "people" as "unspecified other people". And when I read "would it be
> acceptable to impose a minimum requirement of C++14" I understand this to
> be asking if it is acceptable to impose the C++14 requirement on everyone.
> My apologies for the misunderstanding.
>
> Thanks
To my knowledge now that RHEL 7 has gone EOL there is no supported OS without a C++14 compatible compiler by default. Naked constexpr will break MSVC 14.0, but that's not a big loss. Anecdotally Math and Multiprecision moved to C++14 a few years ago with 0 complaints. I know for fact those run on pretty special hardware (e.g. Oak Ridge's supercomputers) with their own specialized compilers and the situation is fine.
Matt