[cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers

[dag at cray.com]

Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> writes:

>     I'm objecting to 1 month for svn trunk - 2 months notice is even
>     pushing it imho.
>     
>     1) This is imho not the small change which it's being presented as
>     2) As someone else stated - there are projects tracking svn trunk
>     and telling them to just stop doing that and follow the previous
>     release is untenable without sufficient notice. (It just doesn't
>     seem fair)
>
> If such projects exist and don't want to switch to C++11 mode, I think
> we should let them speak up, and not delay our own plans on the
> hypothesis that they exist. (Maybe they'll say that this is sufficient
> notice, maybe not, but we can't really guess.)

I'm not objecting to C++11 at all.  I would love it!  But I do agree
that 1-2 months notice for a toolchain update on trunk is too short.
I've been hammered countless times about not working off trunk and I am
moving us in the direction of working off trunk (or at least something
close to it).  Short-notice toolchain changes on trunk are going to
hamper that effort.

It is a massive undertaking to test all of our compiler-related software
once we change the toolchain used to build it.  If there is consensus on
which toolchain to move to about 4-6 months out, that seems like
sufficient time to do testing.  This means that for the next release, a
decision on toolchain needs to be made pretty soon after cutting the
previous release.

                            -David