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

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
> Ok.  If no-one has an objection, then putting it in the release notes (and
> the announcement email!) makes sense.  We can make the switch a few weeks
> after the release if no one has strongly objected.

So far, I'm not hearing any significant objections.

I'm going to put the plan of record about this into the release notes, and
I'll write up a blog post about it and do some other things which will
likely make enough noise to ensure we aren't missing people's objections
over the next few weeks. (Maybe at the dev meeting! ;]) By the time we go
to branch the release, we should know if there are any latent concerns from
folks.

Thanks for all the discussion so far!

(And I'll happily carry on discussing the meta issue of how C++11 should
look when used in LLVM, not trying to close that down.)

-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131029/368ec319/attachment.html>

On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
apple.com> wrote:
> Ok.  If no-one has an objection, then putting it in the release notes (and
the announcement email!) makes sense.  We can make the switch a few weeks after
the release if no one has strongly objected.
> 
> So far, I'm not hearing any significant objections.
You'll certainly hear no objections from me!
[ Chiming in mostly to make it clear that there are people who support this
strongly ]

-- 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131029/b508226f/attachment.html>

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at
gmail.com>wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
google.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
apple.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok.  If no-one has an objection, then putting it in the release notes
>> (and the announcement email!) makes sense.  We can make the switch a
few
>> weeks after the release if no one has strongly objected.
>
>
> So far, I'm not hearing any significant objections.
>
>
> You'll certainly hear no objections from me!
> [ Chiming in mostly to make it clear that there are people who support
> this strongly ]
>
Since I've not actually expressed an opinion on this yet: I'm also in
favor.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131029/45c56a17/attachment.html>

On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at
apple.com> wrote:
> Ok.  If no-one has an objection, then putting it in the release notes (and
the announcement email!) makes sense.  We can make the switch a few weeks after
the release if no one has strongly objected.
> 
> So far, I'm not hearing any significant objections.
> 
> I'm going to put the plan of record about this into the release notes,
and I'll write up a blog post about it and do some other things which will
likely make enough noise to ensure we aren't missing people's objections
over the next few weeks. (Maybe at the dev meeting! ;]) By the time we go to
branch the release, we should know if there are any latent concerns from folks.
SGTM!

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131030/e572fca7/attachment.html>

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes:
> So far, I'm not hearing any significant objections.
>
> I'm going to put the plan of record about this into the release notes,
> and I'll write up a blog post about it and do some other things which
> will likely make enough noise to ensure we aren't missing people's
> objections over the next few weeks. (Maybe at the dev meeting! ;]) By
> the time we go to branch the release, we should know if there are any
> latent concerns from folks.
I'm fine with the general plan but I do want to see a longer notice
period for toolchain changes on trunk.  1-2 months is too short.

                             -David

On 5 November 2013 10:12, <dag at cray.com> wrote:
> I'm fine with the general plan but I do want to see a longer notice
> period for toolchain changes on trunk.  1-2 months is too short.
>
I may be wrong, but I think the final consensus was: for every new change,
warn on (at least) one previous release as when the changes go live.

If I'm mistaken, this is still my opinion on the matter.

cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131106/adc01dfd/attachment.html>

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:12 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote:
> Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes:
> > So far, I'm not hearing any significant objections.
> >
> > I'm going to put the plan of record about this into the release
notes,
> > and I'll write up a blog post about it and do some other things
which
> > will likely make enough noise to ensure we aren't missing
people's
> > objections over the next few weeks. (Maybe at the dev meeting! ;]) By
> > the time we go to branch the release, we should know if there are any
> > latent concerns from folks.
>
> I'm fine with the general plan but I do want to see a longer notice
> period for toolchain changes on trunk.  1-2 months is too short.
>
The overwhelming majority of contributors and users of trunk seem to be
fine with this, so while I'm interested in anything we can do to make it
easier for you, unless we see significantly more concerns about this plan,
I think we should move forward.

Fundamentally, we aren't going to be able to make everyone happy. Some
people will be seriously inconvenienced by this, but thus far the benefit
seems to significantly outweigh the cost.

That said, while I'm about to commit the change to the release notes and
send a summary email to the dev lists, we should continue discussing this.
Nothing is going to be set in stone until the 3.4 release goes out, and
maybe not even then. Especially if you or others want to discuss this with
me in person (or others in person) at the dev meeting, I'm writing this
email from the hacking session. =] Happy to chat.

-Chandler

PS: I've seen the other emails as well, and will be trying to reply to them
as I get time over this week.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131106/bd1940ca/attachment.html>