llvm dev - Mar 2014 - [LLVMdev] C++11 is here!!! (and it looks like it'll stay!)

I flipped the build systems to use C++11 today by default. Nothing seems to
have broken, folks seem happy, and the bots are making good progress.

I plan to slowly remove support for building in C++98 mode over the weekend
and watch the bots to see if there are any that were forcing things in the
other direction. If all goes well, its open season. I've got a bunch of the
basic cleanup (deleting the no longer needed #if's) ready to go, but I'm
being a bit conservative about submitting them.

I've also mailed out some additions to the coding standards to try and
cover a few bikesheds that would likely diverge easily in C++11, and to
cover a few corners of the new language where several people expressed
strong opinions that we should have guidelines about when and where to use
them. You can join the review on llvm-commits, or here:
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2905

Let me know if anything breaks!
-Chandler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140228/469673e6/attachment.html>

On Feb 28, 2014, at 6:48 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> I flipped the build systems to use C++11 today by default. Nothing seems to
have broken, folks seem happy, and the bots are making good progress.
> 
> I plan to slowly remove support for building in C++98 mode over the weekend
and watch the bots to see if there are any that were forcing things in the other
direction. If all goes well, its open season. I've got a bunch of the basic
cleanup (deleting the no longer needed #if's) ready to go, but I'm being
a bit conservative about submitting them.
> 
> I've also mailed out some additions to the coding standards to try and
cover a few bikesheds that would likely diverge easily in C++11, and to cover a
few corners of the new language where several people expressed strong opinions
that we should have guidelines about when and where to use them. You can join
the review on llvm-commits, or here: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2905
This is so awesome, congrats Chandler!

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140228/37fd137a/attachment.html>

On 1 Mar 2014, at 02:48, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> I flipped the build systems to use C++11 today by default. Nothing seems to
have broken, folks seem happy, and the bots are making good progress.
Great news!  It would be nice now that we're all using C++11 to have
something in the style guide about providing C++11-friendly iterators. 
Currently, we have a lot of classes that implement foo_begin() and foo_end()
methods.  It would be nice to have a common pattern for moving these under an
inline class that implemented begin() and end(), so instead of having to do:

for (auto I=X.foo_begin(),E=X.foo_end() ; I!=E, ++E) {
	auto V = *I;
	...
}

We could do:

for (auto V : X.foo()) {
	...
}

David

On 1 March 2014 19:24, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
> for (auto V : X.foo()) {
>         ...
> }
+1

--renato

On 1 March 2014 10:48, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>
wrote:
> I flipped the build systems to use C++11 today by default. Nothing seems to
> have broken, folks seem happy, and the bots are making good progress.
Since the bots don't directly specify the standard level, I'm guessing
they're already adapted.

Now would be a good time to add a few breaking things to see at which
extent this is true.

cheers,
--renato