[cfe-dev] RFC: We should take a more conservative approach to libstdc++ compatibility...

Matthieu Monrocq matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com
Fri Jan 11 10:38:33 PST 2013

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <
kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote:

> On 1/11/2013 6:17 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> I would weaken it a bit by saying: only use a version higher than this
>> hardcoded value if you couldn't find a safer one. Warn all you like
>> (with -Wtoo-recent-libstdc++ on by default), but if there is only
>> libstdc++-4.9 on my machine and clang refuses to even try to use it,
>> that's a pain.
> The max value could be overridden by a secret option to "configure".
> -Krzysztof
Would an option be more suitable ? The problem of configure is that
releases are also distributed as binaries...

Possibly, reusing `-stdlib` flag as `-stdlib=libstc++v4.9`.

-- Matthieu

> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by The Linux Foundation
> ______________________________**_________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/**mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130111/c64c2df2/attachment.html>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list