similar to: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers

On Oct 31, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > You'll note that I replied directly to Ted's post asking whether the timeframe would be reasonable or what would be reasonable, and will naturally be waiting to hear back from him before anything happens. =] After some internal investigation and discussion, dropping support for VS 2010 no

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > >> Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on >> building top-of-tree Clang with

>> If the new feature requires out-of-tree LLVM users to upgrade their >> toolchains then we may only be giving them a month or less warning, >> even if we are giving downstream packagers 6 months. > > Correct. That's not enough warning. If we decide to delay this yet again (it's been on the cards since January, so I'm personally opposed, but still...) we

On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on building top-of-tree Clang with VS2010. We’re currently investigating how quickly we can move those to VS2012 or newer. > > Hi Doug, > > Good

On 11/ 7/13 12:27 AM, Tim Northover wrote: >>> If the new feature requires out-of-tree LLVM users to upgrade their >>> toolchains then we may only be giving them a month or less warning, >>> even if we are giving downstream packagers 6 months. >> Correct. That's not enough warning. > If we decide to delay this yet again (it's been on the cards since

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:38 PM, "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>wrote: > On 11/ 7/13 12:27 AM, Tim Northover wrote: > >> If the new feature requires out-of-tree LLVM users to upgrade their >>>> toolchains then we may only be giving them a month or less warning, >>>> even if we are giving downstream packagers 6 months.

On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on > building top-of-tree Clang with VS2010. We’re currently investigating how > quickly we can move those to VS2012 or newer. > Hi Doug, Good to know. Since this is mostly related to 3.5, we still have half-a-year to make sure it

On 11 November 2013 20:16, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > A list of recommended versions would suffice. > I think the confusion here is that you're trying to enforce a version to make migration easier to you, while we're trying to require a minimal version to be able to include a few new features into the code. These statements are not compatible. I agree we can't just change

David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> writes: >> I may be wrong, but I think the final consensus was: for every new >> change, warn on (at least) one previous release as when the changes >> go live. >> >> If I'm mistaken, this is still my opinion on the matter. > > I think his point was that we encourage out-of-tree projects to follow >

Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> writes: > The rest of the LLVM community isn't using a specific compiler version > like that. We're using lots of different compilers, updates and > versions. If you want a One True Compiler For LLVM, you're going to be > sorely disappointed. A list of recommended versions would suffice. -David

Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> writes: >>> If the new feature requires out-of-tree LLVM users to upgrade their >>> toolchains then we may only be giving them a month or less warning, >>> even if we are giving downstream packagers 6 months. >> >> Correct. That's not enough warning. > > If we decide to delay this yet again

>> GCC 4.7 >> Clang 3.1 >> VS 2012 Xcode 4.2's clang? Do we already have bots with all these versions? Cheers, Rafael

On Oct 27, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Now for the carrot: if we go with this plan, then immediately after >>>>> branching for 3.4, we would be able to use the vast majority of >>>>> C++11 features, targeting the following as the oldest toolchains >>>>> supported

On Oct 27, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 27 October 2013 15:25, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Even better! Can we start adopting C++'11 features in LLVM 3.3 then? > > This could be one of the design guidelines: use any feature supported by the last LLVM release. > > Which could force some distros to

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 02:24:58AM -0700, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > Now for the carrot: if we go with this plan, then immediately after > > branching for 3.4, we would be able to use the vast majority of C++11 > > features, targeting the following as the oldest toolchains supported > > through the 3.5 release timeframe: > > > > GCC 4.7 > > Clang 3.1

On 10/28/13 11:45 AM, Dix Lorenz wrote: > On 27.10.2013, at 20:07, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> >>>> One short term caveat: Windows is special. >> s/Windows/Visual Studio. >> >> MinGW has the latest and greatest gcc. >> >>> I don't see how it is special.

On 27.10.2013, at 20:07, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >>> One short term caveat: Windows is special. > > s/Windows/Visual Studio. > > MinGW has the latest and greatest gcc. > >> I don't see how it is special. > > It is special, sadly, and I'm not talking about C++11

On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Ok. If no-one has an objection, then putting it in the release notes (and the announcement email!) makes sense. We can make the switch a few weeks after the release if no one has strongly objected. > > So far,

I'd gladly install Linux on them, not windows 7. :-) Cheers, Renato On 9 Nov 2013 03:34, "Nathan Ridge" <zeratul976 at hotmail.com> wrote: > >> So, by dropping support for VS 2010, you will be making any developer > >> who uses Windows XP - potentially a large number of developers given > >> Windows XP's still huge market share - unable to build

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