On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:36 PM, David Fang <[email protected]> wrote:
> The proposed patch can just be taken as a reminder that we're post-3.4 and >> thinking about this seriously now. I think some developers are still using >> old compilers day to day. >> > > I'm not opposed to moving towards C++11-izing, and there's been some fair > warning. I've been maintaining a gcc-4.0-friendly [powerpc-darwin8] branch > in the hopes of creating a bootstrappable clang with 'acceptable' quality > codegen, enough to self-host with current libc++. [see my post to llvmdev > a few days ago on the status of this -- a lot has improved recently.] > > I ask that introducing actual C++11 code into the source tree be held off > "a little longer" so that I might have a window of stability where I can > build a working C++11 clang/libc++ starting with (system) gcc-4.0. Once > that is achieved, this unofficial release (3.something-between-4-and-5) can > be used to start future bootstraps of llvm/clang that require C++11. > > It would be really nice to not require a bootstrap of gcc-4.8 for stage-1 > clang, but FSF gcc-4.8 give me unresolved issues on powerpc-darwin8. I'd > rather focus my limited time on in-tree issues in llvm/clang. It's already > a small chore maintaining this long-lived branch. > > Anyways, that's my $0.025. Please consider this wish before landing that > first C++11-ized patch? Is there a particular reason you can't use the 3.4 release branch for this? That was the goal of waiting until now.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
