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

[Richard Smith]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>wrote:

> For those driving c++11 in clang/llvm - Would it generally be acceptable
> to have a "sunrise" period where the preliminary evaluation has been done
> (buildbots, compiler evaluate.. etc) and the 1st actual c++11 commit hits
> the repo. (30-60 days?)
>

I believe we already have buildbots testing with C++11 enabled for many of
the configurations we support. (And we already use some of the new features
if C++11 support is available.) Plus a couple of LLVM subprojects are
already using C++11, and I believe they have buildbots.

In short, I don't think this is something for which we need any action
other than to check that we are already doing the right thing. We already
have a strongly-enforced policy of rolling back/fixing changes that break
bots, so if we are happy with our buildbot coverage, we're all good here.


> -------------
> My concern/thoughts - When we swap out STDCXX for libc++ - We aren't able
> to self host clang. This could be entirely *our* fault, but it hasn't been
> investigated extensively. (We also see Perennial C++ testsuite regressions
> which appear to come from libc++, but also not investiaged/confirmed)
> Having a sunrise period would allow us to investigate this as well as
> report any potentially blocking problems.
>

[As an aside: I use libc++ for my Clang development (on Ubuntu Linux), and
it works for me (tm). This is with libstdc++ providing the ABI pieces,
rather than libc++abi or libcxxrt, though.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20131028/e616bba4/attachment.html>