similar to: Using C++14 code in LLVM

Minor note on process for these types of discussions.... When proposing we move to a new language version, it would be very helpful if you could take the time to identify the specific minimal compiler version required and the minimal distro version which supports that toolchain for each of the major distros.  For those of us which ship software using LLVM, that's the mapping we really

As you probably know, RHEL6 comes with gcc 4.4.7, which doesn't even support C++11. You can install gcc 6.3.1 from Red Hat Software Collections, and that fully supports C++11 and C++14, but not 17. On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Minor note on process for these types of discussions.... > > When proposing we

Windows has never been the issue. Honestly, MSVC on Windows is "fully C++17 conformant" [1]. The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has

If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time. Are the issues specific to C++17 additions to the standard library? What if you allow C++17 language features but not C++17 library features? I'm guessing this is too

Once again, I'm totally down for this and think we should do it. I worry about windows, but ... Zach: How's windows c++14 support looking? -eric On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:01 AM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi folks! > > Six more months have come and gone, and maybe we could move LLVM to C++14 > now? > > The issues I picked out

Consider me on board with the highest version we can come to an agreement on :) On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:50 AM JF Bastien <jfbastien at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 10, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry > that 3 years from now we're going to start

Last time this came up, there were a lot of people that were stuck on GCC 4.9 due to ABI reasons. I think forcing that upgrade is going to be the most disruptive part of this, and I think that will really need a decent amount of time. =[ On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:26 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On May 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Evgeny Astigeevich

> On May 10, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > Windows has never been the issue. Honestly, MSVC on Windows is "fully C++17 conformant" [1]. > > The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We

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>

Well… Ubuntu 16.04 came with gcc 5, and deploying Visual Studio 2015 should be a done deal in Windows shops, which suggests moving to C++14 should be no problem. It's nice to see this week's version of MSVC supports C++17 but deploying through corporate IT can take a while. ("This week's version" because the blog post is dated Monday.) --paulr From: llvm-dev

The easy way not to have a three year discussion is to not worry about it for another three years. :) So, I think we should take the easy things on the table and just move to C++14 in the near future. It's just a matter of dropping support for building on distros that only have GCC <5 (aka Trusty, which is from 2014 itself). Let's do that and call it a day. --- Aside: I'm always

> On May 10, 2018, at 12:25 PM, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 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

> On May 10, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time. Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-) But

> On May 10, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > Last time this came up, there were a lot of people that were stuck on GCC 4.9 due to ABI reasons. I think forcing that upgrade is going to be the most disruptive part of this, and I think that will really need a decent amount of time. =[ Those people don’t build a browser? Because if they build

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:06 PM JF Bastien <jfbastien at apple.com> wrote: > On May 10, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > Last time this came up, there were a lot of people that were stuck on GCC > 4.9 due to ABI reasons. I think forcing that upgrade is going to be the > most disruptive part of this, and I think that will

And what will be the lowest version of clang that will be supported for building? FreeBSD's oldest supported OS release is still stuck with clang 3.4 (and a corresponding copy of libc++), which has some support for C++14, although it's still called c++1y there, but probably not C++17. Also, it isn't exactly clear from which llvm/clang release C++17 is fully supported. -Dimitry >

Firefox's experience is that GCC 5 isn't going to cut it, especially if you move to MSVC 2017, because people are going to be quickly annoyed at the lack of relaxed constexpr function support, which is GCC 6+. You can get GCC 6 for Ubuntu 16.04; I have it on my machine, though it's strangely not listed on packages.ubuntu.com for 16.04. -Nathan On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:20 PM, via

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 4, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: >> >> I ask because many of these LTS distros are notoriously slow at updating >> their

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > > I ask because many of these LTS distros are notoriously slow at updating > their packages. While some people may think C++14 doesn't provide enough > bang for the buck to justify bumping to GCC 4.9, C++17 definitely does. But > at that point we're going to be talking about GCC 6.1 or 6.2,

+1 to C++14. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:37 PM, Nathan Froyd via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Firefox's experience is that GCC 5 isn't going to cut it, especially > if you move to MSVC 2017, because people are going to be quickly > annoyed at the lack of relaxed constexpr function support, which is > GCC 6+. Are you sure? I think you meant GCC 4.9