[llvm-dev] [RFC] migrating past C++11

Brooks Davis via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jan 22 14:15:04 PST 2019

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:44:54PM -0800, JF Bastien via llvm-dev wrote:
> I haven???t documented FreeBSD / NetBSD / Fedora / MacOS / MSVC, and nobody complained at the BoF. I???d like to understand if we should care about documenting these: ideally the toolchain update policy would list which platforms need to be considered and how far back in time is relevant.

For FreeBSD, the relevant issue version included in latest supported
releases on each branch is (since we need to be able to build the HEAD
OS version from at least the previous release.)  That's currently 6.0
for both FreeBSD 11.2 and 12.0.

In the past, we've not done major toolchain upgrades on release
branches, but that changed in FreeBSD 11 and I personally expect use
to keep doing them to at least some extent.  The pain of maintaining
packages on top of clang 3.4 in FreeBSD 10.4 was just too much near its
end of life.

We also support many LLVM version in our ports/package collection.
Currently 3.5, 3.8, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and an erratically updated
snapshot of the head of the tree.  Since we currently bundle a specific
version into the release branch, these versions don't really enter into
the picture for minimum version and they don't provide a C++ standard
library and depend on the one in the base OS.

Long story short, release branches currently have pretty up to date
clang/llvm/libc++ versions and we're certainly fine with a move to
C++14.  (My guess is that C++17 would be fine as well.)

-- Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190122/23ba4b0f/attachment.sig>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list