[cfe-dev] Raising LLVM minimum required, 'dumb question'

[James Gregurich]

hi. thanks for the response.

“we discussed that and it wasn’t the best approach” is good enough for me for now. I don’t have an immediate need, and the folks who looked at it likely know as much or more than I do about the subject. When I have some time to tinker, I’ll try it and see what I get and/or go dig into the archives to see what was said. if the answer to the question is in the archives, then there is no point to rehashing it.  To me, not knowing the history, the two obvious question weren’t being asked…WHAT exactly is “broken" in the headers and CAN it be bypassed with some some preprocessor game-playing? 

I wasn’t trying to a jerk. I just did’t like being shut down on what to me is a legitimate issue to hash out.

-James


On Aug 25, 2014, at 11:14 PM, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi James, I'll bite the bullet by trying to paraphrase Chandler. I think that he was just trying to keep the discussion on topic. It happens quite often that someone has additional questions, like you in this case. But as Chandler pointed out, brokenness of platform headers on windows really doesn't have anything to do with minimum version of msvc needed to compile clang and that's what the discussion was all about.
> 
> Please start a new thread and people will be more than happy to answer your questions. You can also try and search the archive for specific information on how broken the headers are, but I don't think any sort of wrapping can solve these issues, conforming compiler doesn't understand their dialect of C++, it's that simple.
>