Hi Oscar, The question is should llvm start using <thread> and <mutex> when mingw+win32 threads does not support these.
What is the reason to use mingw+win32 threads instead of mingw+pthreads which does support the above? Yaron 2014-09-24 15:47 GMT+03:00 Óscar Fuentes <o...@wanadoo.es>: > Chandler Carruth <chandl...@gmail.com> writes: > > > AKA: MinGW + win32threads is holding LLVM (and all of its subprojects) > > back. We need to stop supporting this host platform. > > > > I'm aware of essentially 2 reasonably important use cases for supporting > > MinGW + win32threads: > > I suppose that you are talking about MinGW (www.mingw.org) all along > and not about MinGW-w64 (www.mingw-w64.org) which supports the features > you are missing. > > > 1) Sane host toolchain on Windows that doesn't require downloading MSVC. > > (I'm dubious about the value of this one...) > > Oh, well. You are talking about "everything that is not MSVC++". Ok. > > > 2) Cross-compiling a Windows clang.exe (and other tools) from a Linux (or > > other host) box. > > I have no idea how cross-compiling from other OS can solve shortcomings > on the *runtime* libraries of a toolchain. > > [snip] > > > I *really* don't want to spend lots of time going > > there because it seems like a low-value platform, but we can. > > Thanks, I knew that you consider MinGW* "low-value" all along. MinGW-w64 > is well ahead of MSVC++ on C++ language and library support, and it is > very likely that it will remain that way, but you take every chance to > bad-mouth it to promote MSVC++ support on LLVM/Clang. > > [snip] > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm...@cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
