On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:16 PM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > > On 6/9/20 6:32 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 10:09 AM Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > >> > >> On 6/8/20 4:53 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> Hi. > >>> > >>> Thank you for the report. It's caused by fact that LLVM switch in > >>> 4d474e078ac7 > >>> to c++14. So that I suggest to use gnu++14. > >>> > >>> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests. > >>> I also verified that abidiff is equal for all libsanitizer shared > >>> libraries. > >>> I'm going to install the patch if there are no objections. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Martin > >> > >> Installed as 942a384ef9f. > >> @Andreas: Can you please check the riscv64 build? > > > > Note we need to document (and configure test?) the build > > requirement for non-bootstrap and asan/ubsan bootstraps. > > My impression was that libsanitizer is always built with just built GCC?
I guess you are right. > Note that similarly the run-time needed c++11 since: > > commit c5be964a423f952e2ec16e2152ae504639bf8f07 > Author: Kostya Serebryany <k...@google.com> > Date: Thu Nov 13 20:41:38 2014 +0000 > > libsanitizer merge from upstream r221802 > > From-SVN: r217518 > > which was a time when GCC was likely built with c++98. > > > > > For now we only document the requirement of a C++11 > > host compiler. Also not sure whether using -std=gnu++1y > > would allow more released compilers to build the code? > > For example GCC 4.8.5 knows -std=gnu++1y but not > > -std=gnu++14 and GCC 4.8.3 is required for bootstrap anyway. > > Do we really care about these compilers as one typically (always?) > use newly built GCC? > > Martin > > > > > Richard. > > > >> Martin >
