Thank you very much for the references, we've missed this discussion from last week. Seeing that the RFC hasn’t got any new responses since Wed 12th, is now the time to declare that the community has accepted the proposal, and to update the docs? Or is there any formal deadline for objections to be raised? -----Original Message----- From: meinersbur at googlemail.com [mailto:meinersbur at googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Michael Kruse Sent: 17 October 2016 11:46 To: Artyom Skrobov Cc: LLVM Dev; nd Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Is GCC 4.7 still supported? There was a thread last week[1] when someone also noticed that LLVM doesn't compile with gcc 4.7 anymore. It turned out that it didn't for 3 months already, as there are no more buildbots testing compilation with gcc 4.7. Therefore there was a discussion to raise the minimum required version to 4.8 [2] [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105742.html [2] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105955.html Michael 2016-10-17 12:19 GMT+02:00 Artyom Skrobov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:> Hello, > > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#software lists "GCC >=4.7.0" among requirements for building LLVM. > However, my attempt of building LLVM+Clang with gcc 4.7.3 has failed with a multitude of errors, such as: > > lib/LTO/Caching.cpp:74:7: error: looser throw specifier for 'virtual llvm::lto::localCache(std::string, llvm::lto::AddFileFn)::<lambda(unsigned int, llvm::StringRef)>::CacheStream::~CacheStream()' > In file included from LTO/Caching.h:18:0, > from LTO/Caching.cpp:14: > LTO/LTO.h:271:11: error: overriding 'virtual llvm::lto::NativeObjectStream::~NativeObjectStream() noexcept (true)' > > tools/clang/include/clang/Analysis/CFG.h:998:38: error: '<::' cannot begin a template-argument list [-fpermissive] > tools/clang/include/clang/Analysis/CFG.h:998:38: note: '<:' is an alternate spelling for '['. Insert whitespace between '<' and '::' > tools/clang/include/clang/Analysis/CFG.h:998:38: note: (if you use '-fpermissive' G++ will accept your code) > > > Either the docs or the makefiles need fixing; so, which is correct and which is wrong? > If no one else has been building LLVM with GCC 4.7 recently, does that mean that nobody cares about 4.7, and therefore it's unsupported? > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
On 17 October 2016 at 12:04, Artyom Skrobov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Seeing that the RFC hasn’t got any new responses since Wed 12th, is now the time to declare that the community has accepted the proposal, and to update the docs? > Or is there any formal deadline for objections to be raised?Hi Artyom, 5 days of silence is not consensus. One example of this is that you completely missed the discussion. :) We don't have an official documented process, but what normally happens is that we have a few iterations (this is the second) of a few days/weeks/months apart, and if the iterations are all trouble free, we announce the switch. It's purposely vague because different decisions need different time outs. I expect this one to be quick, given that we haven't cared about GCC 4.7 enough that is broken for 3 months and no one noticed. But not that quick. If this discussion follows the others in the same gist, Teresa will reply again (or start a new thread), with a more serious subject, and propose the deprecation of that version. People will +1 and if no one objects (so far, not many people have done so), it'll be "official", ie. documents will be updated to reflect the new decision.>From your side, you can safely stop using GCC 4.7 and rely on 4.8+, assome of us are protecting 4.8 (due to a number of reasons) by having buildbots and external validation from 4.8.2 to 4.8.5. cheers, --renato
Thanks a lot for the explanation, it all makes sense now. (For the record, I didn't mean to rush the switch, I just wanted to understand what does it take for the switch to happen.) Yet the present state, where the docs have been misleading for three months, is very far from ideal. If 4.7 is going to spend another month or so in a limbo, I suggest updating the docs to say exactly that. -----Original Message----- From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] Sent: 17 October 2016 12:40 To: Artyom Skrobov Cc: Michael Kruse; LLVM Dev; nd Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Is GCC 4.7 still supported? On 17 October 2016 at 12:04, Artyom Skrobov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> Seeing that the RFC hasn’t got any new responses since Wed 12th, is now the time to declare that the community has accepted the proposal, and to update the docs? > Or is there any formal deadline for objections to be raised?Hi Artyom, 5 days of silence is not consensus. One example of this is that you completely missed the discussion. :) We don't have an official documented process, but what normally happens is that we have a few iterations (this is the second) of a few days/weeks/months apart, and if the iterations are all trouble free, we announce the switch. It's purposely vague because different decisions need different time outs. I expect this one to be quick, given that we haven't cared about GCC 4.7 enough that is broken for 3 months and no one noticed. But not that quick. If this discussion follows the others in the same gist, Teresa will reply again (or start a new thread), with a more serious subject, and propose the deprecation of that version. People will +1 and if no one objects (so far, not many people have done so), it'll be "official", ie. documents will be updated to reflect the new decision. From your side, you can safely stop using GCC 4.7 and rely on 4.8+, as some of us are protecting 4.8 (due to a number of reasons) by having buildbots and external validation from 4.8.2 to 4.8.5. cheers, --renato
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> On 17 October 2016 at 12:04, Artyom Skrobov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Seeing that the RFC hasn’t got any new responses since Wed 12th, is now > the time to declare that the community has accepted the proposal, and to > update the docs? > > Or is there any formal deadline for objections to be raised? > > Hi Artyom, > > 5 days of silence is not consensus. One example of this is that you > completely missed the discussion. :) > > We don't have an official documented process, but what normally > happens is that we have a few iterations (this is the second) of a few > days/weeks/months apart, and if the iterations are all trouble free, > we announce the switch. > > It's purposely vague because different decisions need different time > outs. I expect this one to be quick, given that we haven't cared about > GCC 4.7 enough that is broken for 3 months and no one noticed. But not > that quick. > > If this discussion follows the others in the same gist, Teresa will > reply again (or start a new thread), with a more serious subject, and > propose the deprecation of that version. People will +1 and if no one > objects (so far, not many people have done so), it'll be "official", > ie. documents will be updated to reflect the new decision. >Yep, was just about to ping the proposal when I saw this thread. Think there was only one objection, that I wanted to follow up on. Teresa> From your side, you can safely stop using GCC 4.7 and rely on 4.8+, as > some of us are protecting 4.8 (due to a number of reasons) by having > buildbots and external validation from 4.8.2 to 4.8.5. > > cheers, > --renato > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >-- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161017/4fd73fa2/attachment.html>