[cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

[Richard Smith via cfe-dev]

We generally use an informal, meritocratic, consensus-driven decision
making process.

On 25 August 2017 at 13:21, André Jansen Medeiros Villar via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> Do we have some kind of voting system for these decisions or we try to
> track consensus from responses to the mailing list ?
>
> 2017-08-24 21:33 GMT-03:00 Richard Smith via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
>
>> On 24 August 2017 at 15:18, Tim Northover via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> On 24 August 2017 at 14:10, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
>>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> > It's clearly too late to make a change like this for 5.0.  Is there any
>>> > remaining roadblock to making the change for 6.0 (trunk)?
>>>
>>> I've been slowly trying to make Clang C++14 clean. I think most of the
>>> actual changes needed for Clang are in place now (the big one was
>>> making C++14 mode friendlier to imaginary constants) and the rest is
>>> fixing up tests.
>>>
>>> I think most of the test changes are because the wording on how the
>>> arguments to "operator new" get treated (promotion etc) was changed.
>>> I've attached a WiP diff here for reference. Unfortunately it's not
>>> even complete and these 4 tests still fail:
>>>
>>>     Clang :: CodeGenCXX/vtable-available-externally.cpp
>>>     Clang :: Lexer/cxx-features.cpp
>>>     Clang :: OpenMP/taskloop_reduction_codegen.cpp
>>>     Clang :: OpenMP/taskloop_simd_reduction_codegen.cpp
>>>
>>> I don't even think they're particularly difficult ones, just where I
>>> happened to stop when I last looked at it. I've also got to address
>>> some review comments from Richard (I haven't forgotten) to make sure
>>> we haven't decreased C-mode OpenMP coverage.
>>>
>>> There are also a handful of bits of the test-suite that need to
>>> explicitly specify c++98.
>>>
>>> So I think the actual work needed is pretty small (and I can find time
>>> to do it, probably even this weekend or something). We just need to
>>> make the decision: C++11 or C++14 and go or no-go. My vote is go and
>>> C++14.
>>
>>
>> +1. I think it would also make sense to include in the Clang 5 release
>> notes that we intend for this to be the last release that defaults to
>> -std=gnu++98.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170825/e9eacadd/attachment.html>