llvm dev - Jan 2013 - [LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself

On 1/10/2013 1:28 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
>
> It's not a matter of *all* compilers.  Once we establish a baseline, it
> only matters for those compilers.
So far it appears that the baseline is very limited, compared to the set 
of compilers actively in use.

-Krzysztof

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <
kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 1/10/2013 1:28 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not a matter of *all* compilers.  Once we establish a
baseline, it
>> only matters for those compilers.
>>
>
> So far it appears that the baseline is very limited, compared to the set
> of compilers actively in use.
>
Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case.  I think MSVC 2010 is a
reasonable requirement, but it seems like 2012 is the real target for C++11
features.

>
> -Krzysztof
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted
> by The Linux Foundation
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/**mailman/listinfo/llvmdev<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev>
>


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/20bf684d/attachment.html>

"Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case.  I think MSVC 2010 is a
reasonable requirement, but it seems like 2012 is the real target for C++11
features."

Bah, they can install Mingw binaries.

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/eb78b89f/attachment.html>