[lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: LLVM should require a working C++11 <thread>, <mutex>, and <atomic>

Yaron Keren yaron.keren at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 07:41:35 PDT 2014


C++11 <thread> and <mutex> are the issues. Chandler (as others) would like
to start using <thread> and <mutex> in llvm instead of working around them.
Since mingw.org and mingw-w64-win32 (threads) do not provide these they
would not be able to compile llvm/clang. However there is no reason to stop
supporting mingw-w64-posix which is modern gcc based and does support
<thread> and <mutex>.


2014-09-24 17:21 GMT+03:00 Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>:

> Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com>
> writes:
> Hello Yaron,
> > The question is should llvm start using <thread> and <mutex> when
> > mingw+win32 threads does not support these.
> >
> > What is the reason to use mingw+win32 threads instead of mingw+pthreads
> > which does support the above?
> My understanding is that Chandler is talking about the difficulties of
> supporting MinGW because its dependence on winpthreads (wich does not
> provide a functional <thread> etc). It seems that Chandler is not aware
> of the existence of mingw-w64+pthreads, because both mentioned use cases
> (not depending on MSVC++ and cross-compiling from other OS) are
> perfectly ok with mingw-w64+pthreads.
> So I see Chandler's question as a proposal for ditching MinGW(-w64)
> support, sorry if that interpretation was wrong.
> We have discussed MinGW support on the past and the consensus what that
> the right thing is to switch to MinGW-w64. If we refine the requirement
> as MinGW-w64+pthreads, that looks reasonable to me.
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140924/f5bb5e11/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list