[llvm-dev] Using C++14 code in LLVM

[Zachary Turner via llvm-dev]

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:21 PM Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:10 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:50 PM Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Last time this came up, there were a lot of people that were stuck on
>>> GCC 4.9 due to ABI reasons. I think forcing that upgrade is going to be the
>>> most disruptive part of this, and I think that will really need a decent
>>> amount of time. =[
>>>
>>
>> "a decent amount of time" is very vague though, and is a good way of
>> stalling forward progress.
>>
>
> Let's try to avoid implying bad intent. =/
>
Yea, my intent wasn't to imply bad intent.  Just to say that no progress
gets made this way.  Perhaps I should have worded it in the passive :)


>
>
>>   How *much* time?  And when can we start the clock?
>>
>
> I don't know. I can only speak to the use cases I'm aware of and care
> about. Whoever wants to drive this change needs to get a lot more feedback
> than just from me (IMO) about different users and whether a particular
> schedule will work.
>
> And I already mentioned my schedule, but maybe not explicitly enough: the
> primary platform I care about is planning to be off of libstdc++4.9 (the
> tall poll of the tent for us) by the end of 2018. So it seems like right
> after the branch in January 2019 would be fine for us to bump things up.
> Anything earlier than this will be somewhere between extremely hard to
> infeasible for us.
>
> At that point, we could probably go for C++17 as easily as C++14.
>

Thanks, that's very helpful.  Personally I thinking waiting another 7-8
months so that we could move straight to 17 is a good tradeoff.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180510/77d4745f/attachment.html>