[PATCH] D47073: Document and Enforce new Host Compiler Policy

[JF Bastien via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jfb added a comment.

In D47073#1359335 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073#1359335>, @mehdi_amini wrote:

> I can't add much more than what @jyknight wrote here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073#1358937 ; this summarize perfectly my view of the situation.
>
> In D47073#1359315 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073#1359315>, @jfb wrote:
>
> > > No: the RFC does not include this discussion. If you want to claim this, then please source it precisely.
> >
> > This patch's description links to: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123238.html
> >
> > Which says:
> >
> > > The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: GCC5.1/Clang3.6.  We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8
>
>
> I thought you were OK with the fact that a pure time-based motivation wasn't enough?
>
> > That 3 / 1.5 cutoff was discussed on this patch, e.g. http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123249.html
> >  and came from this discussion: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123182.html
>
> Thanks for this last link, I couldn't find it nowhere in this review, and it isn't in the RFC thread that is linked from here. This last discussion is spot-on what I asked for (multiple times) to justify the versions!
>  (EDIT: I just figured that it is linked *from your abandoned revision*, but not directly from the RFC or from here)
>
> Unfortunately, the thread ends up with: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123268.html ; which is very close to what I'm asking for.
>
> I feel the work of summarizing the choice of the version of compilers has *not* been done and I'm still under the impression. the versions in this patch has been picked on the 3-y time-based and not on the support they provide.
>
> (you mentioned clang 3.4 here by the way: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123247.html )


This review has unfortunately devolved into something totally unhelpful and unlikely to go anywhere. I don't think this is how an open-source project should work. I suggest we abandon this thread. I'll start a separate llvm-dev thread and new patches to get this back on track.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073