[LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself
justin.holewinski at gmail.com
Tue Jan 8 16:53:10 PST 2013
The main issue I see is for users who are stuck on ancient compilers for
historical/dependency reasons. I know of build systems that still use
Ubuntu 8.04 and Red Hat Enterprise 4, because the effort to convert
outweighs the current benefits.
That said, I would be very much in favor of introducing C++11, provided a
compiler baseline is well established. I agree with Sean that GCC 4.6 is
the latest we could reasonably go.
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at googlers.com>
> > The C++ proposal changes rapidly. While it would be great to get usage
> > experience from LLVM in order to inform the C++ proposal, I don't have
> > "what will eventually be in C++" to propose for LLVM. Well, I'd expect
> > some "range<IteratorType>" template with .begin() and .end() methods,
> > but I don't even know what name that template will have.
> Ah, I wasn't aware that it wasn't mostly stabilized. As you pointed
> out, this isn't critical, so we don't need to rush it then.
> > I'm not sure this part of the discussion is on-topic for Chris's
> > thread, since it's not related to a potential problem with enabling
> > C++ language features. (Not having a range type doesn't make
> > range-based for loops fail to compile on some platform, it just makes
> > them slightly less useful.)
> It's not critical. That was mostly a side note about the "code
> cleanup" aspect of Chris's message. It has come up during LLD
> development so I though it might be worth putting out there.
> -- Sean Silva
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev