search for: abliity

...this is about what it takes to produce a binary release of clang/llvm from trunk (and not what it takes to use one), i'd like to see some evidence/argument that using 3/1.5 would actually have a material affect on the number of contributions, etc. (I have doubts it would have any affect on the abliity of new developers to start contributing, etc). All of the clang/llvm based tools i have around (cquery, rtags, you name it) all download and ship binary releases of clang/llvm (and FWIW, they ship and use 1-2 year old releases). It's also unclear to me it makes sense to try to make sure any use...

...is about what it takes to produce a binary release of clang/llvm from trunk (and not what it takes to use one), i'd like to see some evidence/argument that using 3/1.5 would actually have a material affect on the number of contributions, etc. > (I have doubts it would have any affect on the abliity of new developers to start contributing, etc). + 1. > All of the clang/llvm based tools i have around (cquery, rtags, you name it) all download and ship binary releases of clang/llvm (and FWIW, they ship and use 1-2 year old releases). > It's also unclear to me it makes sense to try to...

...is about what it takes to produce a binary release of clang/llvm from trunk (and not what it takes to use one), i'd like to see some evidence/argument that using 3/1.5 would actually have a material affect on the number of contributions, etc. > (I have doubts it would have any affect on the abliity of new developers to start contributing, etc). > + 1. > All of the clang/llvm based tools i have around (cquery, rtags, you name it) all download and ship binary releases of clang/llvm (and FWIW, they ship and use 1-2 year old releases). > It's also unclear to me it makes sense to t...

I second this proposal, and I make a motion to lengthen 3/1.5 to 6/5. On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi All- > As we all know, the C++14 discussion is flaring up again. Chandler > brought up that he would like a concrete plan to switch. In my opinion, > this is insufficient, as it will result in us simply

Hi All- As we all know, the C++14 discussion is flaring up again. Chandler brought up that he would like a concrete plan to switch. In my opinion, this is insufficient, as it will result in us simply having this discussion AGAIN next release. Instead, I would prefer us to have a concrete Policy on our host compilers. That way, changes like this are unsurprising to our users, and advance our