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 27 October 2013 15:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> Even better!  Can we start adopting C++'11 features in LLVM 3.3 then?
>
This could be one of the design guidelines: use any feature supported by
the last LLVM release.

Which could force some distros to compile Clang more than once, but it
could also mean people would migrate faster to more modern compilers.

cheers,
--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131027/09077d81/attachment.html>

On Oct 27, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 27 October 2013 15:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
> Even better!  Can we start adopting C++'11 features in LLVM 3.3 then?
> 
> This could be one of the design guidelines: use any feature supported by
the last LLVM release.
> 
> Which could force some distros to compile Clang more than once, but it
could also mean people would migrate faster to more modern compilers.
I'm not sure what you mean.  Are your proposing that clang 3.4 use any
features supported by clang 3.3?  If so, that won't work, because clang
can't self-host on all interesting architectures, e.g. it isn't fully
ABI compatible with Visual C++ (yet).

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131027/f9ee224e/attachment.html>

On 27 October 2013 15:53, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean.  Are your proposing that clang 3.4 use any
> features supported by clang 3.3?  If so, that won't work, because clang
> can't self-host on all interesting architectures, e.g. it isn't
fully ABI
> compatible with Visual C++ (yet).
>
No, not yet. Certainly not for 3.4!

My comment was more to the effect that we could use this as a target for
the future (and probably never achieve it), thus why "design
guideline" and
not a developer policy.

We'll have to make sure we can do it on all "interesting"
architectures
first (given all constraints).

--renato
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131027/ed62cb4b/attachment.html>