On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:55 PM, David Fang <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >> > > Hi, > > I've actually created a powerpc-darwin8-rel-3.4 branch that tracks > 'release_34', and tried to backport some of the fixes that missed the 3.4 > branch. This branch isn't able to build stage-2 yet. Trunk however, *can* > build stage-2, but I haven't been able to identify the trunk commit that > fixed PR 15901 and 15965, stage-2 blockers. Cool, it sounds like these should definitely be back-ported without issue and unblock you. That would then allow you to use Clang as a baseline for subsequent builds. > Even if we identify that patch and backport, Iain and I stil have several > diagnostics and fixes in the works. Depending on how far trunk has > diverged from the 3.4 brach, we *may* be able to backport those fixes as > well. I will certainly make an effort. Similarly, once you have a working host by backporting these, you should be fine to use C++11 features no? I'd really like to not hold up this switch too much waiting on this, as it has been a really long time coming, and it seems unlikely that there will be anything better than backporting some fixes to 3.4 and using that as the baseline for a modern host compiler.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
