[llvm-commits] [lld] r152269 - in /lld/trunk: ./ include/lld/Core/ include/lld/Platform/ lib/ lib/Core/ lib/Passes/ test/ tools/lld-core/

[Michael Spencer]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Evandro Menezes <emenezes at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> At the moment, C++11 support is sketchy and there doesn't seem to be any
> real benefit from requiring C++11 in the code.  I don't think that
> throwing in minor features of C++11 for C++11's sake is reasonable when
> so many compilers still hiccup at it with scary warning messages.
> Rather, I prefer to have the sources built without any warning.
>
> Thanks,

Clang's, GCC's and MSVC's C++11 support is stable when using the
features they state are implemented. We will be using more than just
auto.

What compilers give scary warnings?

- Michael Spencer

> --
> Evandro Menezes          Austin, TX          emenezes at codeaurora.org
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc is a member of the Code Aurora Forum
>
>
> On 03/07/12 18:47, Marshall Clow wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote:
>>
>>> Author: kledzik
>>> Date: Wed Mar  7 18:18:30 2012
>>> New Revision: 152269
>>>
>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=152269&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Sources now require C++11 to build.
>>
>> Nick --
>>
>> Can you explain the rationale behind requiring C++11 to build lld?
>> [ I saw a bunch of 'auto' in the changes, but nothing else that was obviously C++11 jumped out at me ]
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -- Marshall
>>
>> Marshall Clow     Idio Software<mailto:mclow.lists at gmail.com>
>>
>> A.D. 1517: Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the church door and is promptly moderated down to (-1, Flamebait).
>>          -- Yu Suzuki
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits