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

via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Jan 23 09:36:44 PST 2019

Please include MSVC in the table. While the picture on Windows is way less complicated than for *nix, it's still a platform and toolchain that matter to a number of us in the community.

Separately, there was talk of needing to have bots that specifically use the oldest supported toolchains, otherwise we can't genuinely promise that they are really supported (don't want feature dependencies creeping in by accident).

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of James Y Knight via llvm-dev
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:36 AM
To: Krzysztof Parzyszek
Cc: llvm-dev
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] migrating past C++11

I'd expect that either we'll either workaround the issues (e.g. not start using the broken feature), or else propose to require even newer versions. And as now, discuss the expected tradeoff between new features and requiring new compiler versions.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:22 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
On 1/22/2019 3:44 PM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev wrote:
> One clear upside of dropping older toolchains: they don’t even support
> C++11 very well.

Do we know that the proposed newer compilers support C++14 very well?
If we encounter issues with them, how are we going to deal with that?


Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190123/bd48c5ce/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list