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

Justin Holewinski justin.holewinski at gmail.com
Fri Jan 11 05:02:22 PST 2013

Alright, trying to get this conversation back on track...

It seems as though the question to ask is: do the benefits of the C++11
features we want outweigh the cost of alienating users of older compilers?
 For Mac, the question seems almost moot since clang is a fully-supported
compiler.  On Linux, it is most often (always?) possible to bootstrap clang
or a newer GCC, so a baseline like 4.5/4.6 does not seem unreasonable.
 Seems like the same should be true for the BSDs.  It may be a bit of work
to set up, but it should be a one-time deal.  Once a clang 3.1/3.2 binary
is available, all is well.  The problem child, so to speak, is Windows.  I
strongly suggest that support for MSVC *not* be dropped.  There are many
users out there relying on this support.  That said, I think MSVC 2010 is a
reasonable target, at least for 3.3.  And then perhaps move to MSVC 2012
for 3.4.  That should allow for enough time for users to upgrade.

So, can we limit ourselves to MSVC 2010-level support for 3.3?

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:

> "Daniels, Marcus G" <mdaniels at lanl.gov> writes:
> [snip]
> It is obvious that you don't develop C++ software on Windows for a
> living.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130111/6c5f5131/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list