On 2013-08-15 12:42 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On 8/14/13 5:34 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧
<pidgeo...@gmail.com>wrote:
On 8/14/2013 3:07 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
Over the past few weeks, I've had the build completely break three time
due to issues with Apple clang 4.1, which tells me that we're not
doing any
regular builds with Apple clang 4.1 (c.f. Bug 892594, Bug 904108,
and the
fact that the current tip of m-i won't link with Apple clang 4.1).
I'll note that the bugs I mention above are both working around actual
bugs in clang, not missing features.
Any time I ask in #developers, the answer seems to be that our minimum
version for Apple clang is still 4.1. I would propose that (unless
we're
adapting some of our infra builders to check that we can at least
compile
and link with 4.1), we formally abandon 4.1 as a supported compiler.
For what it's worth, the usual reference point for clang versions is
synchronized with the LLVM versions, so the current tip-of-trunk is 3.3;
when dealing with Clang compatibility, all version references refer
to that
internal number, so Clang 4.1 is a version which doesn't exist yet :-) .
Guessing that "Apple clang 4.1" means "the clang shipped with Xcode
4.1",
and using Wikipedia to get version info, this means that you're
trying to
use roughly Clang 3.0 ("based on LLVM 3.0svn"). We've never set a
minimum
Clang version to my knowledge for C++11 support (given that Clang has
been
ahead of the curve here), but I consider Clang < 3.1 unbuildable at
least
on Linux.
Should we make this explicit and fail builds with clang < 3.2?
I'd go so far as to suggest that we explicitly require the Mozilla-built
Clang package as defined by the tooltool manifest unless a
--allow-unofficial-toolchain (or similar) configure flag is defined. I'm
not sure if the package used by our builders is easily installed
locally. So I think aggressively pruning the supported toolchain set is
a good way to make development more pain free in the short term.
Currently there is no (easy?) way for us to download those packages.
Why would we only allow Mozilla built packages in the first place
though? Compiling with newer clang is usually fine, it's old versions
of clang which cause these kinds of problems.
Cheers,
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
