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

Thu May 10 12:25:54 PDT 2018

Hi,

IMHO, it’s a good idea to move to C++14 first.

What do you think about doing this by two phases:

Phase1: require GCC >= 5 but build in C++11 mode (this will give time to adapt build infrastructure to a new gcc)
Phase2: switch to C++14

Thanks,
Evgeny

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Reply-To: Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>
Date: Thursday, 10 May 2018 at 19:50
To: Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Using C++14 code in LLVM

The easy way not to have a three year discussion is to not worry about it for another three years. :)

So, I think we should take the easy things on the table and just move to C++14 in the near future. It's just a matter of dropping support for building on distros that only have GCC <5 (aka Trusty, which is from 2014 itself). Let's do that and call it a day.

---
Aside: I'm always kind of amused by talk of moving to the next "standard version" when the reality is that every C++ project is always held back by the compilers and standard libraries that they actually use in practice. We say LLVM requires C++11 which mandates a working set of threading primitives, but in practice those don't exist on some platforms that people would like us to support, so we end up maintaining the LLVM_ENABLE_THREADING=0 build for them.

It seems more practical to simply list the minimum versions of supported toolchains that are commonly used to build, i.e. GCC 5, MSVC 2015, Clang 3.N, libc++ 3.N, libstdc++ 3.N, etc.

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:36 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time.

Are the issues specific to C++17 additions to the standard library?  What if you allow C++17 language features but not C++17 library features?  I'm guessing this is too simple though and isn't sufficient to avoid the problems (which I don't know anything about, so you'll have to enlighten me)?

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:28 AM JF Bastien <jfbastien at apple.com<mailto:jfbastien at apple.com>> wrote:

On May 10, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com<mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:

Windows has never been the issue.  Honestly, MSVC on Windows is "fully C++17 conformant" [1].

The issue has and always will be GCC.  Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17.  We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14.  They only have reservations about moving to anything at all.  So if we're gonna move, we should go all the way.

WebKit’s move to C++17 hasn’t been super smooth because of GCC / libstdc++ issues in both GCC 6 and GCC 7. It’s all fixable, but given LLVM's slow move out of C++11 I’d rather get C++14 now rather than a painful transition to C++17 that drags on as we discover issues.

Just my 2c.

[1] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2018/05/07/announcing-msvc-conforms-to-the-c-standard/

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:18 AM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com<mailto:echristo at gmail.com>> wrote:
Once again, I'm totally down for this and think we should do it. I worry about windows, but ...

Zach: How's windows c++14 support looking?

-eric

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:01 AM JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Hi folks!

Six more months have come and gone, and maybe we could move LLVM to C++14 now?

The issues I picked out from the last discussion:
1.       Some folks want an official policy about compiler support before updating the standard version we use.
2.       Worries about which GCC version is available in which distro.
3.       Worries about MSVC.

Instead of rehashing the compiler per distro surveys from previous discussion, and instead of talking bootstrap, let me offer three data points:
·         WebKit is moving to C++17<https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2018-March/029922.html> (from C++14) right now †
·         Chromium started moving to C++14<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/cxx/ow7hmdDm4yw/eV6KWL2yAQAJ> in August of last year
·         Firefox uses some C++14<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Using_CXX_in_Mozilla_code>
What I get from this data: if your distro bundles a modern web browser, it already builds some C++14, somehow.

The LLVM community has been talking about this for a while now, and I’m not aware of a policy coming to light. I don’t think we need a policy given the above data. So how about we… just kinda... move LLVM to C++14?

Thanks!

JF

† the move to C++17 is very painful, but 14 has been working great in WebKit for quite a long time.

> Last time we discussed this, the consensus was "I think we can survive
> another year without generalized constexpr and variable templates".
>
> Well, we did indeed survive.   And it's been exactly a year!  So naturally,
> it only makes sense to revive this :)
>
>
>
> There's an active conversation going on in IRC right now, and it seems like
> there is more desire than there was last year.
>
> What are the main gains from allowing C++14?
> * Variable templates
> * Generalized constexpr
> * Return-type Deduction
> * Generic Lambdas
> * std::make_unique<> (the source of many build bot breakages)
>
>
> What are the main gains from allowing C++17?  [1]
> * [[nodiscard]] attribute
> * structured bindings
> * constexpr-if
> * guaranteed copy elision
> * numerous new library types: optional, string_view, variant, byte,
> * numerous new algorithms: parallel algorithms, too many to list
> * Probably some more, but I just tried to hit the biggest ones.
>
>
> First, it seems like if we want to enable C++14 we need GCC >= 5.
> And if we want to enable C++17 we need GCC >= 7.
>
> With that out of the way, here were some of the issues that were raised
> last time:
>
> Issue: Ubuntu 14.04 LTS is on GCC 4.8.x, and we have to support it until
> end of life.
> Resolution: LTS is right around the corner, in 6 more months.
>
> Issue: Various other platforms have older GCCs as their system compiler,
> and it's annoying to upgrade.
> Question: Do any of these not have a port you can install?  For example,
> NetBSD 7 appears to have GCC 5.3 as a port, if DistroWatch is any
> indication.  It could be wrong though and I could also be misinterpreting
> it.
>
> Issue: If we're going to make people bootstrap a compiler, we might as well
> go all the way to C++17.
> Comment: I'm not opposed.
>
>
> Some questions / comments of my own:
>
> * Where is this policy about Ubuntu and LTS documented?  Does this mean,
> for example, that we will not be able to use C++17 until 2023 (16.04 LTS
> has only GCC 5.3.1)?  That seems a bit unreasonable.  And there's no
> guarantee that 18.04 LTS will even have GCC 7 or higher either, so it could
> be 2025 or 2027.
>
> * We've asked people in the past to build a modern toolchain.  For example,
> we did it with C++11 and Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.  Is C++17 compelling enough to
> justify this again?
>
> * GCC 4.9 probably isn't sufficient to justify an increase for anyone, as
> it lacks two of the more sought-after features of C++14 (variable templates
> and generalized constexpr).  So IMO we should require a bump to GCC 5 or
> higher, or not at all.
>
> * Clang 6 supports all of C++20, and it builds with only C++11, so we
> shouldn't have to worry too much about the problem of needing to "daisy
> chain" compilers to finally get the latest version of LLVM building.  "GCC
> 4.8 -> Clang 6 - > Clang ToT" should hold up through C++1z.
>
> * While we obviously can't be tied to the versioning of every single distro
> out there, some are "bigger" than others.  Which are big enough that
> warrant serious consideration?  The ones I found are (and I did my best to
> aggregate all this, but please correct me if anything is incorrect or
> misrepresented):
>
> OpenBSD - Ships with GCC 4.2.1 anyway.  They are already having to
> bootstrap something, so the proposal here does not change anything, because
> even current LLVM doesn't compile with GCC 4.2.1
>
> CentOS & RHEL - No version of Distro, including trunk, has GCC >= 4.8.5
> (are there ports?)
>
> Debian - Minimum version 9 for GCC >= 5  (are there ports for earlier
> releases?)
>
> Fedora - Minimum version 24 for GCC >= 5, minimum version 26 for GCC >= 7
>
> Ubuntu - Minimum LTS 16.04 for GCC >= 5
>
> NetBSD - Version 7 has GCC 4.8.4 by default, but contains port for 5.3.0
>
> FreeBSD - Minimum Version 11 for GCC >= 5
>
> So, thoughts?
>
>
> [1] - Note that we'd need to wait a few more revs for MSVC before allowing
> C++17, but given that it's becoming easier and easier to bump the minimum
> MSVC version, I'm discounting this as a factor, as MSVC will not really be
> the bottleneck in any real sense.
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:15 PM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<http://apple.com/>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com<http://google.com/>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com<http://apple.com/>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 4, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<http://lists.llvm.org/>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com<http://google.com/>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I ask because many of these LTS distros are notoriously slow at updating
>>>> their packages. While some people may think C++14 doesn't provide enough
>>>> bang for the buck to justify bumping to GCC 4.9, C++17 definitely does. But
>>>> at that point we're going to be talking about GCC 6.1 or 6.2, which is
>>>> going to be significantly harder unless we want to wait 5-7 years, and I
>>>> suspect people won't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If by "notoriously slow" you mean they don't bump their toolchain
>>> versions at all, then yeah. We just wait until the LTS release is at
>>> end-of-life before dropping it.
>>>
>>>
>>> That’s the first time I read about this policy: we support every linux
>>> LTS distribution till their end-of-life? Only Ubuntu? Do you have a pointer
>>> where it is documented / discussed?
>>> (Note that Ubuntu LTS is 5 years AFAIK.)
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't mean to refer to the LTS support lifetime. I just meant we
>> support the last LTS until we can reasonably expect users to have upgraded
>> to the new one. If there's an LTS release every two years, then we want to
>> keep supporting them for at least three years to give people a year to
>> upgrade.
>>
>>
>> OK, got it.
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying!
>>
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto: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/20180510/eb3a1a19/attachment.html>