Hi, C++11 <thread> and <mutex> are the issues. Chandler (as others) would like to start using <thread> and <mutex> in llvm instead of working around them. Since mingw.org and mingw-w64-win32 (threads) do not provide these they would not be able to compile llvm/clang. However there is no reason to stop supporting mingw-w64-posix which is modern gcc based and does support <thread> and <mutex>.
Yaron 2014-09-24 17:21 GMT+03:00 Óscar Fuentes <o...@wanadoo.es>: > Yaron Keren <yaron.ke...@gmail.com> > writes: > > Hello Yaron, > > > 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? > > My understanding is that Chandler is talking about the difficulties of > supporting MinGW because its dependence on winpthreads (wich does not > provide a functional <thread> etc). It seems that Chandler is not aware > of the existence of mingw-w64+pthreads, because both mentioned use cases > (not depending on MSVC++ and cross-compiling from other OS) are > perfectly ok with mingw-w64+pthreads. > > So I see Chandler's question as a proposal for ditching MinGW(-w64) > support, sorry if that interpretation was wrong. > > We have discussed MinGW support on the past and the consensus what that > the right thing is to switch to MinGW-w64. If we refine the requirement > as MinGW-w64+pthreads, that looks reasonable to me. > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-dev mailing list > cfe-...@cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
