> > In any case, we are setup for an eventual collision between MIDAS CFLAGS (-std=gnu++11) and ROOT CFLAGS (-std=something else).
> 
> Are there good reasons to not compile MIDAS with set(CMAKE_CXX_STANDARD 14)? So far this was an easier "fix" for me than to recompile ROOT with c++11.

We already have trouble enough even with requiring C++11:

We still run a number of SL6 DAQ stations at TRIUMF, and it is well known that SL6 gcc does not even do c++11.

The suggested solution to "simply just use the devtoolset-8" compilers turned out to be missing a critical 32-bit
library and cannot build midas for 32-bit VME processors. (straight or cross-compiled).

(A solution for this can be kludged using unofficial packages: https://midas.triumf.ca/elog/Midas/1748)

No, we cannot "just upgrade" SL6 and no, we cannot "just replace" the 32-bit-only VME processors.

If we move the midas requirements from c++11 to c++14, again, we have to see what compilers
are available on what platforms, and I am sure again we will miss some important case.

And then, where does this train stop?

I see c++17 has some really nice to use improvements. And I see c++20 added even some more nice improvements.

I say we follow ROOT: https://root.cern.ch/supported-platforms

> Supported Platforms
> ROOT 6
> The compiler needs to support -std=c++11 to be able to build version 6.

K.O.