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 Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:49 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote:
> Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> But the benefit is still there even if it takes a month or two longer.
>
> This is a *serious* issue.  It doesn't seem like people really
> comprehend the challenges of upgrading toolchains in large software
> projects.  We're talking about millions and millions of lines of code
> spread out over many independent modules.  These all have to fit
> together to create a usable tool.
>
> What is so hard about waiting an extra month to give people a chance to
> test the new toolchain?
>
You could start now with compiling under C++11 mode. The autoconf and (I
think) cmake ability is there now. That should get you your extra month -
especially if you count when we started this discussion.

-eric


>
> > 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.
>
> I'm not going to be at the dev meeting.
>
>                          -David
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131109/ee540072/attachment.html>

Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> writes:
>     What is so hard about waiting an extra month to give people a
>     chance to test the new toolchain?
>
> You could start now with compiling under C++11 mode. The autoconf and
> (I think) cmake ability is there now. That should get you your extra
> month - especially if you count when we started this discussion.
This is very frustrating.  I'm not sure why my message is being lost.
We need to know the specific version of gcc to test (in our case, others
are concerned about other toolchains).

In all likelihood everything's going to work perfectly.  But in the past
we have run into buggy compilers, nonconforming code in our sources,
etc. and it's a ton of work to track down the problem and fix it.
That's why the window is important.

We can't start testing until we know what to test.

                              -David

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:11 AM,  <dag at cray.com>
wrote:
> Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> writes:
>
>>     What is so hard about waiting an extra month to give people a
>>     chance to test the new toolchain?
>>
>> You could start now with compiling under C++11 mode. The autoconf and
>> (I think) cmake ability is there now. That should get you your extra
>> month - especially if you count when we started this discussion.
>
> This is very frustrating.  I'm not sure why my message is being lost.
> We need to know the specific version of gcc to test (in our case, others
> are concerned about other toolchains).
>
> In all likelihood everything's going to work perfectly.  But in the
past
> we have run into buggy compilers, nonconforming code in our sources,
> etc. and it's a ton of work to track down the problem and fix it.
> That's why the window is important.
>
> We can't start testing until we know what to test.
>
Chandler has been very specific on versions here.

-eric