[lldb-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: LLVM should require a working C++11 <thread>, <mutex>, and <atomic>

[Óscar Fuentes]

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes:

> Apparently in a quest for brevity I left too much ambiguous. Some
> clarifying points:
>
> 1) I had tried to make it clear with the subject, but this *only* applies
> to MinGW toolchains shipping without C++11 <thread> and <mutex> support.
> That means (from the limited information available in their documentation)
> that mingw-w64 is fine, and even mingw when using thread-posix is fine.

That's clear now, thanks.

> 2) When I listed my use cases, I meant the use cases for the *specific*
> narrow set of non-C++11 <thread> providing toolchains. There are many good
> and valid uses cases for MinGW in general, I just didn't see the need to
> enumerate them. But for whatever reasons, some folks are avoiding the more
> modern MinGW toolchains, and I think we need to understand why.

The best thing for understanding their reasons is to ask them to speak
up. My experience on the MinGW/MinGW-w64 communities is that those who
choose MinGW is because of ignorance about MinGW-w64 and because there
are lots of documents on the 'net that references MinGW. MinGW is, to
all practical effects, a zombie project and there is no reason to prefer
it over MinGW-w64 nowadays.