search for: d46723

...elease of our host compilers (MSVC, GCC, Clang, ?ICC?) released in the past 3* years from our previous branch date to give trunk-developers time to transition (so for 7.0, 3 years before January 3, 2018). This will be enforced via the CMake CheckCompilerVersion script (ala https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723). ADDITIONALLY, a CMake warning will be issued for any major release less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for exa...

...ompilers (MSVC, GCC, Clang, ?ICC?) released in the > past 3* years from our previous branch date to give trunk-developers time > to transition (so for 7.0, 3 years before January 3, 2018). This will be > enforced via the CMake CheckCompilerVersion script (ala > https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723). ADDITIONALLY, a CMake warning will be > issued for any major release less than 1.5* years old to give our users > sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our > dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially > supported by the collection o...

...elease of our host compilers (MSVC, GCC, Clang, ?ICC?) released in the past 3* years from our previous branch date to give trunk-developers time to transition (so for 7.0, 3 years before January 3, 2018). This will be enforced via the CMake CheckCompilerVersion script (ala https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723). ADDITIONALLY, a CMake warning will be issued for any major release less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for exa...

...elease of our host compilers (MSVC, GCC, Clang, ?ICC?) released in the past 3* years from our previous branch date to give trunk-developers time to transition (so for 7.0, 3 years before January 3, 2018). This will be enforced via the CMake CheckCompilerVersion script (ala https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723). ADDITIONALLY, a CMake warning will be issued for any major release less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for exa...

...vm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118673.html> Using C++14 code in LLVM (2016) <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105483.html> Document and Enforce new Host Compiler Policy <http://llvm.org/D47073> Require GCC 5.1 and LLVM 3.5 at a minimum <http://llvm.org/D46723>When replying to this email, please avoid having the same discussions again. Please provide references to anything I might have missed. If you’re making a new point, say so. And don’t assume ill-will, I’m just trying to get us off C++11. I have a patch for you to review: https://reviews.llvm.or...

...elease of our host compilers (MSVC, GCC, Clang, ?ICC?) released in the past 3* years from our previous branch date to give trunk-developers time to transition (so for 7.0, 3 years before January 3, 2018). This will be enforced via the CMake CheckCompilerVersion script (ala https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723). ADDITIONALLY, a CMake warning will be issued for any major release less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for exa...

...GCC, Clang, ?ICC?) released in the >> past 3* years from our previous branch date to give trunk-developers time >> to transition (so for 7.0, 3 years before January 3, 2018). This will be >> enforced via the CMake CheckCompilerVersion script (ala >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723). ADDITIONALLY, a CMake warning will be >> issued for any major release less than 1.5* years old to give our users >> sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our >> dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially >> supported by...

...> What do you think about doing this by two phases: >> >> Phase1: require GCC >= 5 but build in C++11 mode (this will give time to adapt build infrastructure to a new gcc) >> Phase2: switch to C++14 > > Sounds reasonable, here’s a patch: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723> > > >> Thanks, >> Evgeny >> >> >> >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> on behalf of Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm....

...elease of our host compilers (MSVC, GCC, Clang, ?ICC?) released in the past 3* years from our previous branch date to give trunk-developers time to transition (so for 7.0, 3 years before January 3, 2018). This will be enforced via the CMake CheckCompilerVersion script (ala https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723). ADDITIONALLY, a CMake warning will be issued for any major release less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for exa...

...elease of our host compilers (MSVC, GCC, Clang, ?ICC?) released in the past 3* years from our previous branch date to give trunk-developers time to transition (so for 7.0, 3 years before January 3, 2018). This will be enforced via the CMake CheckCompilerVersion script (ala https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723>). ADDITIONALLY, a CMake warning will be issued for any major release less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported...

...elease of our host compilers (MSVC, GCC, Clang, ?ICC?) released in the past 3* years from our previous branch date to give trunk-developers time to transition (so for 7.0, 3 years before January 3, 2018). This will be enforced via the CMake CheckCompilerVersion script (ala https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723>). ADDITIONALLY, a CMake warning will be issued for any major release less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported...

...gt; > What do you think about doing this by two phases: > > Phase1: require GCC >= 5 but build in C++11 mode (this will give time to > adapt build infrastructure to a new gcc) > Phase2: switch to C++14 > > > Sounds reasonable, here’s a patch: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723 > > > Thanks, > Evgeny > > > > *From: *llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Reid > Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Reply-To: *Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> > *Date: *Thursday, 10 May 2018 at 19:50 &gt...

...vm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118673.html> Using C++14 code in LLVM (2016) <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105483.html> Document and Enforce new Host Compiler Policy <http://llvm.org/D47073> Require GCC 5.1 and LLVM 3.5 at a minimum <http://llvm.org/D46723> Migrate to what? I’m only proposing that we migrate to C++14 for now. If you want to propose C++17, please do the work required by the policy. In particular, document which toolchains this would require, and what features you’d unlock. As per policy, I want to start soft-errors when building...

...ve to C++14 first. > > What do you think about doing this by two phases: > > Phase1: require GCC >= 5 but build in C++11 mode (this will give time to adapt build infrastructure to a new gcc) > Phase2: switch to C++14 Sounds reasonable, here’s a patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723> > Thanks, > Evgeny > > > > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> on behalf of Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at list...

...gt; What do you think about doing this by two phases: >> >> Phase1: require GCC >= 5 but build in C++11 mode (this will give time to adapt build infrastructure to a new gcc) >> Phase2: switch to C++14 > > Sounds reasonable, here’s a patch: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D46723> > > >> Thanks, >> Evgeny >> >> >> >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>> on behalf of Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.ll...

...html> > - Using C++14 code in LLVM (2016) > <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105483.html> > - Document and Enforce new Host Compiler Policy > <http://llvm.org/D47073> > - Require GCC 5.1 and LLVM 3.5 at a minimum <http://llvm.org/D46723> > > > *Migrate to what?* > > I’m only proposing that we migrate to C++14 for now. If you want to > propose C++17, please do the work required by the policy. In particular, > document which toolchains this would require, and what features you’d > unlock. As per policy, I...

...html> > - Using C++14 code in LLVM (2016) > <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105483.html> > - Document and Enforce new Host Compiler Policy > <http://llvm.org/D47073> > - Require GCC 5.1 and LLVM 3.5 at a minimum <http://llvm.org/D46723> > > > *Migrate to what?* > > I’m only proposing that we migrate to C++14 for now. If you want to > propose C++17, please do the work required by the policy. In particular, > document which toolchains this would require, and what features you’d > unlock. As per policy, I...

...118673.html> >>> Using C++14 code in LLVM (2016) <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105483.html> >>> Document and Enforce new Host Compiler Policy <http://llvm.org/D47073> >>> Require GCC 5.1 and LLVM 3.5 at a minimum <http://llvm.org/D46723> >>> >>> Migrate to what? >>> >>> I’m only proposing that we migrate to C++14 for now. If you want to propose C++17, please do the work required by the policy. In particular, document which toolchains this would require, and what features you’d unlock. As pe...

Hi, IMHO, it’s a good idea to move to C++14 first. What do you think about doing this by two phases: Phase1: require GCC >= 5 but build in C++11 mode (this will give time to adapt build infrastructure to a new gcc) Phase2: switch to C++14 Thanks, Evgeny From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

...gt; >>>> Using C++14 code in LLVM (2016) <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-October/105483.html> >>>> Document and Enforce new Host Compiler Policy <http://llvm.org/D47073> >>>> Require GCC 5.1 and LLVM 3.5 at a minimum <http://llvm.org/D46723> >>>> >>>> Migrate to what? >>>> >>>> I’m only proposing that we migrate to C++14 for now. If you want to propose C++17, please do the work required by the policy. In particular, document which toolchains this would require, and what features you...