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

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Wed Sep 24 10:10:03 PDT 2014

Apparently in a quest for brevity I left too much ambiguous. Some
clarifying points:

1) I had tried to make it clear with the subject, but this *only* applies
to MinGW toolchains shipping without C++11 <thread> and <mutex> support.
That means (from the limited information available in their documentation)
that mingw-w64 is fine, and even mingw when using thread-posix is fine.

2) When I listed my use cases, I meant the use cases for the *specific*
narrow set of non-C++11 <thread> providing toolchains. There are many good
and valid uses cases for MinGW in general, I just didn't see the need to
enumerate them. But for whatever reasons, some folks are avoiding the more
modern MinGW toolchains, and I think we need to understand why.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:

> Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> writes:
> > 2) Cross-compiling a Windows clang.exe (and other tools) from a Linux (or
> > other host) box.
> I have no idea how cross-compiling from other OS can solve shortcomings
> on the *runtime* libraries of a toolchain.

? The use case is "why mingw + threads-win32"; we just need some
alternative strategy for addressing this use case. If mingw-w64 were a
viable alternative, I have to assume that people would already be using it
(it's been around and working well for ages). So I'm trying to find yet
another alternative way to address the use case.

> [snip]
> > I *really* don't want to spend lots of time going
> > there because it seems like a low-value platform, but we can.
> Thanks, I knew that you consider MinGW* "low-value" all along.

Not at all! What I don't think has high value is trying to add libc++
support to a variant of mingw which seems stalled and not going anywhere.
But that is just one variant! There are a ton of high-value mingw-based
systems, such as mingw-w64. But none of those *need* libc++ because they
have a reasonable modern and high quality C++11 standard library already. =]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140924/70ed03e2/attachment.html>

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list