[cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

[Richard Smith via cfe-dev]

The proposal is to go straight to C++14. That both matches GCC's current
default and the suggested policy of setting the default to the most recent
published standard for which we have sufficiently mature support.

On 21 May 2017 at 03:54, Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com>
wrote:

> From the “Subject” and earlier messages in this thread, it would appear
> that the proposed default Standard is C++11; but the words in this message
> and a few other messages seem to suggest that the proposed default Standard
> is C++14.
>
>
>
> I’m just curious about the proposed default, is it to be C++11 or C++14?
> I don’t have any argument against changing the default to either, but would
> like to know what is really being proposed.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>             MartinO
>
>
>
> *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Smith via cfe-dev
> *Sent:* 19 May 2017 18:12
> *To:* Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
> *Cc:* Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11
>
>
>
> On 18 May 2017 11:18 pm, "Robinson, Paul" <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
>
> Not to forget that Charles Li did a pile of work over the past year or so
> to tidy up a lot of the tests.  Given that the PS4 target already defaults
> to C++11, I should hope there would be little left to do.
>
> Right, and indeed we have buildbots that test that a C++11 default works.
> So the remaining cleanups would be for C++14-specific issues, which should
> be minimal in comparison to the great work Charles did.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Richard
> Smith via cfe-dev
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:30 PM
> *To:* Tim Northover
> *Cc:* cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11
>
>
>
> On 18 May 2017 at 19:38, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 18 May 2017 at 18:56, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement
> that
> > we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for
> > someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so
> (particularly in
> > the test suite).
>
> I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully I can at least get some
> numbers here by the end of the day. Possibly patches; what's our
> preferred solution to failures: fix the code (within reason), or
> -std=c++98?
>
>
>
> If the difference is interesting, test it in both modes. If the test is
> C++98-specific or has uninteresting diagnostic differences, -std=c++98.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170521/16cecc42/attachment.html>