[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D105563: [libc++][docs] Update documentation to reflect libc++'s compiler support policy

[Martin Storsjö via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

mstorsjo added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/index.rst:113
+=============== ==================== ============================
+Target platform Target architecture  Notes
+=============== ==================== ============================
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> mstorsjo wrote:
> > ldionne wrote:
> > > mstorsjo wrote:
> > > > phosek wrote:
> > > > > I'd be interested in including Fuchsia here but we don't have bots yet, it's something we plan to work on in H2 2021.
> > > > Windows is missing in this list. In practice it works for i386, x86_64, ARM and ARM64, but the CI setup covers x86_64. In my downstream usage it practically runs fine on all of them (but I haven't run full testsuite rounds on other than x86_64 and arm64).
> > > @phosek Awesome, I'll be looking forward to helping you setup Fuchsia build bots and then adding it to the list.
> > > 
> > > @mstorsjo I'll add Windows to the list. I based this off of the list we had previously, but I guess it makes sense to complete it. Are there any plans to add real CI for Windows / `arm64`?
> > Windows/arm64 isn't available on any common cloud infra providers that I know of yet (I don't know about the setup where the current buildkite windows runners are hosted, but I doubt they have it easily accessible either), so probably no plans for that in the immediate future.
> Alright, in that case I'm going to remove `arm64` from `Windows` since we are unable to test it on a regular basis. I really want to avoid being hand-wavy -- when we say we support it, I want us to truly provide support for it, which we're unable to do if we don't test publicly on a regular basis.
I appreciate that you want to avoid being hand-wavy, but would you be ok with adding a separate paragraph clarifying what support means here, e.g. something along these lines?

"These are platform/architecture combinations that are continuously tested, that we support. In practice, the library also is regularly used on other architectures, but as they're not continuously tested they're not formally supported."

... because I've had my fair share of dealing with people interpreting lists like this as "the website says it *only* works on x86_64 on windows, so it's certainly broken on the other architectures". So that acknowledges that we're aware of it working well on other architectures too (even though that makes it a bit more hand-wavy), and that makes it a bit clearer that not being on the list doesn't make it more broken, just less continuously tested.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D105563/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D105563