On Aug 23, 2014, at 6:49 PM, Óscar Fuentes <o...@wanadoo.es> wrote:
> Alex Rosenberg <al...@leftfield.org> writes: > >> On Aug 23, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Renato Golin <renato.go...@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> Also, >>> compiling Clang with MSVC and making Clang MSVC compatible are two >>> completely different things. A commercial toolchain based on MSVC >>> compatibility doesn't necessarily need to be compiled with MSVC >>> itself. >> >> But it must. If you want to be able to use LLVM DLLs inside a Windows >> app, it has to be built with MSVC because they have their own C++ ABI. > > This is false. LLVM libraries can be used on C++ Windows applications > just fine without using MSVC at all. If the main executable is built with MSVC's C++ ABI, then what are you going to build LLVM with that even links? MinGW doesn't use the MSVC C++ ABI. Clang-cl dosn't generate PDB data. The only available option is MSVC. >> At some point, Clang will support Microsoft's ABI well enough to >> consider a bootstrap instead. > > AFAIK Clang bootstraps on MinGW-w64. MinGW doesn't implement the same C++ ABI at all. It implements the Itanium ABI like we use on every other platform. > To go back on topic: C++ features advertised by MSVC as recently > supported usually are too immature to be used on practice. So looking at > a brochure is not enough when deciding what you gain when you upgrade > your MSVC install. Agreed. Let's get back to the original proposal, which was for us to abandon our established policy and drop a version of MSVC that we support in order to use variadic templates to rewrite cl::opt. Alex _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
