[LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself

Justin Holewinski justin.holewinski at gmail.com
Tue Jan 8 18:00:29 PST 2013

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Marc J. Driftmeyer <mjd at reanimality.com>wrote:

>  Seeing as I'm using OS X and Debian Sid which is on GCC 4.7.2-5 which
> moved over to Wheezy for Debian 7 release it seems more reasonable to
> target that than using Ubuntu's 4.6.x which is never more conservative than
> Debian on releases.

So you're saying targetting 4.7 is more conservative than 4.6?

> - Marc
> P.S. I'm more interested in actually seeing if this will improve an actual
> smooth installation of libc++ with llvm/clang/compiler-rt trunk so I can
> actually start using libc++ on Linux and not have to hack around to get it
> working. Get that going and I'm sure with Debian's dual FreeBSD/Linux
> building of Deb packages with LLVM/Clang you'll get plenty of community
> testing.
> On 01/08/2013 04:24 PM, dag at cray.com wrote:
> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> <clattner at apple.com> writes:
>  It's seems like a quiet and peaceful day, lets stir things up a bit :)
> How crazy would it be for us to start using basic C++'11 language
> features (but not C++'11 library features) in LLVM: things like auto,
> rvalue-refs, lambdas, etc?  I think that we can keep things well
> defined with a few simple requirements: language features must be
> supported by MSVC 2010 and later, some version of GCC and later (linux
> folks should pick?), some version of Clang and later (Freebsd folks?).
>  Note that this is NOT an official message from Cray in any way, shape or
> form.  I've passed on your note to our group for information but I don't
> expect a serious problem with this given enough lead time.
> I am personally very much in favor of this.  C++11 really is a huge leap
> from C++03 in terms of readability, maintainability and safety.
> Why not C++11 libraries?  Implementation/capatability reasons?  I don't
> know anything about how the various implementation compare in terms of
> completeness.  But the libraries use the new language features and
> theoretically you get a performance boost "for free."
> I'm assuming we wouldn't release an llvm with C++11 until 3.4 at least
> which gives folks a good 8 months to a year to prepare.  Doing it in a
> 3.3 release shortens that considerably but it might be ok.  The biggest
> issue for groups like ours is upgrading the compiler we use to build our
> compiler.  We have a LOT of components and they all have to work with
> the new build environment.  It involves a lot of testing and assurance
> which is where we might bump up against a 3.3 release, not having a new
> compiler in place before 3.3 is out.
> As for gcc version, it looks like 4.7.2 is in Debian Wheezy and that's
> usually the most common distribution to lag behind in these kinds of
> things.  I think that's sufficiently new for Linux but someone correct
> me if that's wrong.
>                               -David
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing listLLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.eduhttp://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> --
> Marc J. Driftmeyer
> Email :: mjd at reanimality.com
> Web :: http://www.reanimality.com
> Cell :: (509) 435-5212
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev



Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130108/94881475/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list