llvm dev - Jan 2014 - [LLVMdev] Build-bot host compiler upgrades and C++11!

Greetings, starting a new thread and CC-ing all the folks I could think of
that are likely running bots for LLVM. If I've missed any, sorry, please
add them.

As lots of folks have been mentioning, it's time to switch LLVM (and most
subprojects) to use C++11. The first step is establishing a new baseline of
compiler versions that are supported[1]:

MSVC 2012
GCC 4.7
Clang 3.1

If you are helping to keep our build bot infrastructure running and
up-to-date, please check the host compiler versions and reply here if
you're going to have trouble upgrading. My rough plan based on chatting
with some folks is to submit checks to cmake and configure on Monday to
produce an error on older toolchains without some flag to force old
toolchain support.

So reply to this thread if you need more time, or if all your bots are
ready-to-go! Thanks a bunch!
-Chandler


[1]: Most of these compilers were available in the middle (June) of 2012,
and based on the planned 3.5 release time frame of the middle of 2014, that
will mean a roughly two year spread of compiler releases. MSVC 2012 was
later, but the community seems comfortable with requiring the upgrade.
Also, these versions include very significant improvements that make
adopting C++11 features much more viable. This was discussed at some length
on the mailing list, and I'm not really trying to re-open debate here, just
reminding folks. =]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140107/c0dd6ebd/attachment.html>

On 01/07/2014 10:40 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> Greetings, starting a new thread and CC-ing all the folks I could think of
> that are likely running bots for LLVM. If I've missed any, sorry,
please
> add them.
>
> As lots of folks have been mentioning, it's time to switch LLVM (and
most
> subprojects) to use C++11. The first step is establishing a new baseline of
> compiler versions that are supported[1]:
>
> MSVC 2012
> GCC 4.7
> Clang 3.1
>
> If you are helping to keep our build bot infrastructure running and
> up-to-date, please check the host compiler versions and reply here if
> you're going to have trouble upgrading. My rough plan based on chatting
> with some folks is to submit checks to cmake and configure on Monday to
> produce an error on older toolchains without some flag to force old
> toolchain support.
>
> So reply to this thread if you need more time, or if all your bots are
> ready-to-go! Thanks a bunch!
> -Chandler
>
>
> [1]: Most of these compilers were available in the middle (June) of 2012,
> and based on the planned 3.5 release time frame of the middle of 2014, that
> will mean a roughly two year spread of compiler releases. MSVC 2012 was
> later, but the community seems comfortable with requiring the upgrade.
> Also, these versions include very significant improvements that make
> adopting C++11 features much more viable. This was discussed at some length
> on the mailing list, and I'm not really trying to re-open debate here,
just
> reminding folks. =]
OK.

The polly testers & LNT builders as well as the 
clang-x86_64-darwin12-nt-O3 builder are running either on gcc 4.7.2 or 
on Apple LLVM version 4.2 (clang-425.0.28) (based on LLVM 3.2svn).

Tobias

On 01/ 7/14 04:47 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
> On 01/07/2014 10:40 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
>> Greetings, starting a new thread and CC-ing all the folks I could 
>> think of
>> that are likely running bots for LLVM. If I've missed any, sorry,
please
>> add them.
>>
>> As lots of folks have been mentioning, it's time to switch LLVM
(and
>> most
>> subprojects) to use C++11. The first step is establishing a new 
>> baseline of
>> compiler versions that are supported[1]:
>>
>> MSVC 2012
>> GCC 4.7
>> Clang 3.1
>>
>> If you are helping to keep our build bot infrastructure running and
>> up-to-date, please check the host compiler versions and reply here if
>> you're going to have trouble upgrading. My rough plan based on
chatting
>> with some folks is to submit checks to cmake and configure on Monday to
>> produce an error on older toolchains without some flag to force old
>> toolchain support.
I'd only ask that you 1) either by default it doesn't error on unknown 
compiler and or 2) there's an override to prevent the "check" from
happening at all (or not causing cmake to fail)
---------
This will allow compilers which are compatible, but not in the specific 
list above to keep working without issues.

I don't know how easy it would be to test for it, but you may also want 
to create a documented policy on minimum libc++ and libstdc++ versions 
which are supported. Since clang 3.1 may be on a system which has some 
older/newer version and that could impact the c++11 support as well.

FYI, this is happening now-ish!


On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>wrote:
> Greetings, starting a new thread and CC-ing all the folks I could think of
> that are likely running bots for LLVM. If I've missed any, sorry,
please
> add them.
>
> As lots of folks have been mentioning, it's time to switch LLVM (and
most
> subprojects) to use C++11. The first step is establishing a new baseline of
> compiler versions that are supported[1]:
>
> MSVC 2012
> GCC 4.7
> Clang 3.1
>
> If you are helping to keep our build bot infrastructure running and
> up-to-date, please check the host compiler versions and reply here if
> you're going to have trouble upgrading. My rough plan based on chatting
> with some folks is to submit checks to cmake and configure on Monday to
> produce an error on older toolchains without some flag to force old
> toolchain support.
>
> So reply to this thread if you need more time, or if all your bots are
> ready-to-go! Thanks a bunch!
> -Chandler
>
>
> [1]: Most of these compilers were available in the middle (June) of 2012,
> and based on the planned 3.5 release time frame of the middle of 2014, that
> will mean a roughly two year spread of compiler releases. MSVC 2012 was
> later, but the community seems comfortable with requiring the upgrade.
> Also, these versions include very significant improvements that make
> adopting C++11 features much more viable. This was discussed at some length
> on the mailing list, and I'm not really trying to re-open debate here,
just
> reminding folks. =]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140113/0e0d8dd1/attachment.html>

Hi Chandler,

I'm still migrating our bots, there were some complications. Can it wait
until next week?

cheers,
--renato


On 13 January 2014 22:00, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> FYI, this is happening now-ish!
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at
gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Greetings, starting a new thread and CC-ing all the folks I could think
>> of that are likely running bots for LLVM. If I've missed any,
sorry, please
>> add them.
>>
>> As lots of folks have been mentioning, it's time to switch LLVM
(and most
>> subprojects) to use C++11. The first step is establishing a new
baseline of
>> compiler versions that are supported[1]:
>>
>> MSVC 2012
>> GCC 4.7
>> Clang 3.1
>>
>> If you are helping to keep our build bot infrastructure running and
>> up-to-date, please check the host compiler versions and reply here if
>> you're going to have trouble upgrading. My rough plan based on
chatting
>> with some folks is to submit checks to cmake and configure on Monday to
>> produce an error on older toolchains without some flag to force old
>> toolchain support.
>>
>> So reply to this thread if you need more time, or if all your bots are
>> ready-to-go! Thanks a bunch!
>> -Chandler
>>
>>
>> [1]: Most of these compilers were available in the middle (June) of
2012,
>> and based on the planned 3.5 release time frame of the middle of 2014,
that
>> will mean a roughly two year spread of compiler releases. MSVC 2012 was
>> later, but the community seems comfortable with requiring the upgrade.
>> Also, these versions include very significant improvements that make
>> adopting C++11 features much more viable. This was discussed at some
length
>> on the mailing list, and I'm not really trying to re-open debate
here, just
>> reminding folks. =]
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140114/59f604c4/attachment.html>

On 01/07/2014 10:40 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> Greetings, starting a new thread and CC-ing all the folks I could think of
> that are likely running bots for LLVM. If I've missed any, sorry,
please
> add them.
>
> As lots of folks have been mentioning, it's time to switch LLVM (and
most
> subprojects) to use C++11. The first step is establishing a new baseline of
> compiler versions that are supported[1]:
>
> MSVC 2012
> GCC 4.7
> Clang 3.1
>
> If you are helping to keep our build bot infrastructure running and
> up-to-date, please check the host compiler versions and reply here if
> you're going to have trouble upgrading. My rough plan based on chatting
> with some folks is to submit checks to cmake and configure on Monday to
> produce an error on older toolchains without some flag to force old
> toolchain support.
>
> So reply to this thread if you need more time, or if all your bots are
> ready-to-go! Thanks a bunch!
This change broke the gcc compile farm bots. On the compile farm, gcc is 
normally around version 4.4. However, gcc 4.8.2 is available in the 
non-default directory /opt/cfarm/gcc-latest/bin

Maybe we can adapt the buildbots to find it there.

@Duncan, do you have time to do so?

Cheers,
Tobias

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es>
wrote:
> This change broke the gcc compile farm bots. On the compile farm, gcc is
> normally around version 4.4. However, gcc 4.8.2 is available in the
> non-default directory /opt/cfarm/gcc-latest/bin
>
> Maybe we can adapt the buildbots to find it there.
>
> @Duncan, do you have time to do so?
>
Just as an FYI, I saw this and chatted with Duncan tonight about fixing.
He's looking into it, but may need to delegate it to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140114/b6f4db86/attachment.html>

In the case of Ubuntu - I thought an older version of clang was 
available in the repo. Why didn't they just switch the build bot to use 
that instead of forcing gcc-4.8.2?