You don't have to distribute libwinpthread.dll with your application. Considering that libwinpthread is approx. 50 KiB, that's not much of a reason. "Classic" MinGW doesn't have it AFAIK, but who uses that instead of MinGW-w64 nowadays?
-- Johannes S. Mueller-Roemer, MSc Wiss. Mitarbeiter - Interactive Engineering Technologies (IET) Fraunhofer-Institut für Graphische Datenverarbeitung IGD Fraunhoferstr. 5 | 64283 Darmstadt | Germany Tel +49 6151 155-606 | Fax +49 6151 155-139 johannes.mueller-roe...@igd.fraunhofer.de | www.igd.fraunhofer.de From: llvmdev-boun...@cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-boun...@cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Yaron Keren Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 15:32 To: Óscar Fuentes Cc: lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-...@cs.uiuc.edu Developers; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: LLVM should require a working C++11 <thread>, <mutex>, and <atomic> 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<mailto:o...@wanadoo.es>>: Chandler Carruth <chandl...@gmail.com<mailto: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<http://www.mingw.org>) all along and not about MinGW-w64 (www.mingw-w64.org<http://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<mailto: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
