[llvm-dev] A Short Policy Proposal Regarding Host Compilers

Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri May 11 18:26:34 PDT 2018

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> - Giving a recommendation of the requirements in terms of a bootstrapping
> path seems more manageable, no? i.e. if LLVM version N can build LLVM HEAD,
> then if the LTS distributions can build LLVM N then they should be able to
> get to LLVM HEAD.

‚ÄčI agree with this, except that the intermediate‚Äč compiler could be llvm or
gcc (or another).

I think building *one* intermediate compiler is not too onerous.

clang 3.4 is probably a good choice if you only want to use C++14 features,
not C++17. It demands only C++98 from the system compiler, but supports
C++11 and C++14.

If you want to use C++17 features then you need a Clang that itself needs
the system compiler to support C++11 compiler to build it. Maybe we're
there already.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180512/33914f0e/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list