llvm dev - Oct 2013 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers

On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:
> Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on
> building top-of-tree Clang with VS2010. We’re currently investigating how
> quickly we can move those to VS2012 or newer.
>
Hi Doug,

Good to know. Since this is mostly related to 3.5, we still have
half-a-year to make sure it won't break big things.

This whole discussion, in my view, was more to put the thought into our
heads, so that we can plan ahead for deprecating old compilers and add
language features that would make the code more readable and extensible.
The time frame can stretch to accommodate people's schedules, but at least
I think most of us agree it's a good move forward.

cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131031/108106d9/attachment.html>

On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com>
wrote:
> Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on
building top-of-tree Clang with VS2010. We’re currently investigating how
quickly we can move those to VS2012 or newer.
> 
> Hi Doug,
> 
> Good to know. Since this is mostly related to 3.5, we still have
half-a-year to make sure it won't break big things.
> 
Yeah. I’d like to hear about regarding Chrome’s dependencies as well; we don’t
want to break them.
> This whole discussion, in my view, was more to put the thought into our
heads, so that we can plan ahead for deprecating old compilers and add language
features that would make the code more readable and extensible. The time frame
can stretch to accommodate people's schedules, but at least I think most of
us agree it's a good move forward.
Oh, I fully agree that this is a good move forward, and I fully expect we’ll be
able to make it for 3.5.

	- Doug


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131031/4aa0c75e/attachment.html>

On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com>
wrote:
> Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on
building top-of-tree Clang with VS2010. We’re currently investigating how
quickly we can move those to VS2012 or newer.
> 
> Hi Doug,
> 
> Good to know. Since this is mostly related to 3.5, we still have
half-a-year to make sure it won't break big things.
We base our work directly off mainline, not on llvm.org releases, so this will
hit us when the first patch lands.

However, my understanding from Ted's email that we can work with this.  Ted,
can you confirm?

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131031/d40b5c05/attachment.html>

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com>
wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org>
> wrote:
>
> On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com>
wrote:
>
>> Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on
>> building top-of-tree Clang with VS2010. We’re currently investigating
how
>> quickly we can move those to VS2012 or newer.
>>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Good to know. Since this is mostly related to 3.5, we still have
> half-a-year to make sure it won't break big things.
>
>
> Yeah. I’d like to hear about regarding Chrome’s dependencies as well; we
> don’t want to break them.

As discussed in a bunch of different places, Chrome should be fine here.

You'll note that I replied directly to Ted's post asking whether the
timeframe would be reasonable or what would be reasonable, and will
naturally be waiting to hear back from him before anything happens. =]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131031/cc1060cb/attachment.html>

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org>
> wrote:
>
> On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com>
wrote:
>
>> Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on
>> building top-of-tree Clang with VS2010. We’re currently investigating
how
>> quickly we can move those to VS2012 or newer.
>>
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Good to know. Since this is mostly related to 3.5, we still have
> half-a-year to make sure it won't break big things.
>
>
> Yeah. I’d like to hear about regarding Chrome’s dependencies as well; we
> don’t want to break them.
>
If clang starts using C++11 library features (i.e.links to libc++) it won't
run on 10.6 any longer. At the moment all our builders are still on 10.6
(since that's the oldest OS X version we run chrome on), but we wanted to
upgrade the builders to something newer anyways, so having a forcing
function for that isn't terrible I suppose.

Nico

>
> This whole discussion, in my view, was more to put the thought into our
> heads, so that we can plan ahead for deprecating old compilers and add
> language features that would make the code more readable and extensible.
> The time frame can stretch to accommodate people's schedules, but at
least
> I think most of us agree it's a good move forward.
>
>
> Oh, I fully agree that this is a good move forward, and I fully expect
> we’ll be able to make it for 3.5.
>
> - Doug
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131031/5f898ef0/attachment.html>