<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">We generally use an informal, meritocratic, consensus-driven decision making process.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 August 2017 at 13:21, André Jansen Medeiros Villar via cfe-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Do we have some kind of voting system for these decisions or we try to track consensus from responses to the mailing list ?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">2017-08-24 21:33 GMT-03:00 Richard Smith via cfe-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span>:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="m_1724749531154422448h5">On 24 August 2017 at 15:18, Tim Northover via cfe-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Paul,<br>
<br>
On 24 August 2017 at 14:10, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev<br>
<span><<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> It's clearly too late to make a change like this for 5.0. Is there any<br>
> remaining roadblock to making the change for 6.0 (trunk)?<br>
<br>
</span>I've been slowly trying to make Clang C++14 clean. I think most of the<br>
actual changes needed for Clang are in place now (the big one was<br>
making C++14 mode friendlier to imaginary constants) and the rest is<br>
fixing up tests.<br>
<br>
I think most of the test changes are because the wording on how the<br>
arguments to "operator new" get treated (promotion etc) was changed.<br>
I've attached a WiP diff here for reference. Unfortunately it's not<br>
even complete and these 4 tests still fail:<br>
<br>
Clang :: CodeGenCXX/vtable-available-ex<wbr>ternally.cpp<br>
Clang :: Lexer/cxx-features.cpp<br>
Clang :: OpenMP/taskloop_reduction_code<wbr>gen.cpp<br>
Clang :: OpenMP/taskloop_simd_reduction<wbr>_codegen.cpp<br>
<br>
I don't even think they're particularly difficult ones, just where I<br>
happened to stop when I last looked at it. I've also got to address<br>
some review comments from Richard (I haven't forgotten) to make sure<br>
we haven't decreased C-mode OpenMP coverage.<br>
<br>
There are also a handful of bits of the test-suite that need to<br>
explicitly specify c++98.<br>
<br>
So I think the actual work needed is pretty small (and I can find time<br>
to do it, probably even this weekend or something). We just need to<br>
make the decision: C++11 or C++14 and go or no-go. My vote is go and<br>
C++14.</blockquote><div><br></div></div></div><div>+1. I think it would also make sense to include in the Clang 5 release notes that we intend for this to be the last release that defaults to -std=gnu++98. </div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><span class="">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
cfe-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
cfe-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>