[llvm-dev] Using C++14 code in LLVM

[Zachary Turner via llvm-dev]

Sorry for the quietness the past couple of weeks.  It's clear from the
thread that there's interest, but also some valid concerns.  In the next
couple of weeks I'm going to put together a survey and send it out so that
we hopefully have some more information to work with.

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:35 PM UE US <uexplorer666 at gmail.com> wrote:

> As long as the target is supported, I think the difficulty of rolling a
> cross chain is overrated, but I've done lots of them and I remember when it
> wasn't relatively easy.  I don't see their being harder at first as a
> reason to impede progress with the language which, keep in mind, we're
> actually writing the compiler in... as long as nobody suggests a total port
> to Delphi.  ;-)
>
> GNOMETOYS
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:23 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I’m ok with that, but the reason I’m pushing is because there is no
>>> clear plan of action. Even if the plan of action is “When X happens, we can
>>> enable C++14”, that’s fine too. I just want to know, concretely, what is X.
>>>
>>> We should either be able to say never or give a reasonable set of
>>> conditions that would enable a switch. All I’ve seen though is “it’s hard”
>>> which just means I’m going to ask again next year, and the year after, etc
>>> due to lack of clear guidance.
>>>
>>> To address your point though , this isn’t really about building
>>> everything with clang. You don’t need to bootstrap Clang to build a
>>> hypothetical C++17 enabled LLVM, you could also bootstrap a more modern
>>> version of GCC.
>>>
>>> This is really more fundamentally about “Can we have a clearly defined
>>> policy about how often we can bump the minimum compiler version, like we
>>> have for MSVC?”
>>
>>
>> To make this even more concrete, let me offer a proposal:
>>
>> * We can bump the minimum required non-Microsoft toolchain version every
>> 4 years.
>>
>> Having something written like this allows us to have a schedule, and
>> having a schedule allows downstream consumers to plan upgrades as needed so
>> as to minimize disruption.
>>
>> 4 years is also a pretty reasonable amount of time IMO, but we can
>> certainly discuss the exact value of N.
>>
>> I haven't said anything here about what it can be bumped *to*.  But in
>> the interest of making progress, I'm separating the decisions out into
>> smaller pieces so we can focus on one thing at a time.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171113/ad669fe1/attachment.html>