similar to: Using C++14 code in LLVM

> On Oct 3, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> writes: >> A thread was started over the summer to discuss the timeline for bumping >> LLVM up to Visual Studio 2015 to enable the use of various new language >>

Hello fans of the auto keyword! We now have a policy on how LLVM toolchains get updated <https://reviews.llvm.org/rL351765>! Let’s put that policy to good use, and talk about how we’ll move all monorepo projects past C++11. Previous Discussions LLVM dev meeting 2018 BoF "Migrating to C++14, and beyond! <http://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-10/talk-abstracts.html#bof3>" A Short

> On Apr 1, 2019, at 4:10 PM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 1, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:16 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>

> On May 6, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > I know you'll be shocked that we've slipped in our efforts. ;] I don't have a super meaningful ETA update though -- a bunch of unknows have been found and addressed, and again, I feel like we might finish this in roughly a month. > > On the flip side, I do want to clarify the

> -----Original Message----- > From: aaron.ballman at gmail.com [mailto:aaron.ballman at gmail.com] On Behalf > Of Aaron Ballman > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:19 PM > To: Zachary Turner > Cc: Sean Silva; Robinson, Paul; Piotr Padlewski; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading to MSVC 2015 > > There are not that many people making commits to

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:44 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > Given the small number of library features added by c++14, and given that > they were mostly already implemented in libstdc++ 4.9 [1], I suspect that > moving to c++14 with that stdlib as the minimum probably will not actually > cause friction for developers who are using normal toolchains to be able

I'm happy to announce that Google has migrated to libc++, and we're ready for C++14 and beyond. JF, what are the remaining blockers? /Eric On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 5:12 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On May 6, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:44 PM James Y

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:46 PM Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 05:33:40AM +0000, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev > wrote: > > While GCC doesn't claim to "fully" support C++14 until 5.2 (which is only > > about 1 year old), you can get all of the above features with GCC 4.9 > > I do care quite a

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,

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:16 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello folks (except fans of April 1st: this is *not* a joke), > > We discussed migrating past C++11 > <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-January/129452.html> recently > and got consensus. This led us to bump our minimum toolchain requirements >

Hi folks! Six more months have come and gone, and maybe we could move LLVM to C++14 now? The issues I picked out from the last discussion: Some folks want an official policy about compiler support before updating the standard version we use. Worries about which GCC version is available in which distro. Worries about MSVC. Instead of rehashing the compiler per distro surveys from previous

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

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

FWIW, no objections from me, after all I proposed this 3 months ago :) Probably Aaron Ballman should comment though since the primary objection last time was his. On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:00 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> There are certainly

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: aaron.ballman at gmail.com [mailto:aaron.ballman at gmail.com] On Behalf >> Of Aaron Ballman >> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 2:19 PM >> To: Zachary Turner >> Cc: Sean Silva; Robinson, Paul; Piotr Padlewski; llvm-dev at

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

> -----Original Message----- > From: aaron.ballman at gmail.com [mailto:aaron.ballman at gmail.com] On Behalf > Of Aaron Ballman > Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 12:41 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Zachary Turner; Sean Silva; Piotr Padlewski; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading to MSVC 2015 > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Robinson, Paul

I think it's been a little over a year since we bumped the minimum VS version to 2013. Are we planning to do the same for 2015? Update 2 is releasing soon, which is stable enough at least to ship Chromium <https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/compiler-bugs-found-when-porting-chromium-to-vc-2015/> . Language wise, 2015 comes with a lot of new C++ features. The most interesting

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

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