[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D99691: [libcxx] adjusts formatting rules

Thu Apr 1 02:32:18 PDT 2021

mstorsjo added a comment.

In D99691#2663291 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99691#2663291>, @curdeius wrote:

> In D99691#2663099 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99691#2663099>, @mstorsjo wrote:
>
>> In D99691#2663091 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D99691#2663091>, @curdeius wrote:
>>
>>> Or, adding fuel to the fire, could we possibly deprecate C++03 mode in libc++?
>>
>> Sorry, -1 from me on that one at least - I'm pretty sure that out of the software packages that still are regularly compiled with new toolchains these days, a not-insignificant number of them are still built in C++98/03 mode.
>
> But do such projects use the latest version of the standard library?

I would think so. Consider e.g. a distribution - a linux distribution could be using libc++ as default (I'm not off-hand aware of any doing that). Or MSYS2 are considering a separate package namespace for all of their packages, built with clang/lld/libc++. They have ~1850 packages from various sources, that would be rebuilt with the latest and greatest toolchain. And my own toolchain packaging, llvm-mingw, which I test (with the latest nightly of everything from llvm/libc++) against building a bunch of projects, including VLC (which bundles a bit over 100 third party libraries). I'd expect Chromium to be doing pretty much the same too.

So rebuilding a large array of existing projects regularly with a new compiler isn't anything strange in itself. For projects that are incompatible with newer versions, I believe they might have started (either upstream or via downstream patches) to set `-std=c++98`) after compilers started defaulting to newer standards.

> Anyway, it was half a joke to propose the deprecation and the discussion about it is out of scope of this patch.

Yeah, clear out of scope here, just replying to give some context.

Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D99691/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D99691