Chandler Carruth <chandl...@google.com> writes: > Apparently in a quest for brevity I left too much ambiguous. Some > clarifying points: > > 1) I had tried to make it clear with the subject, but this *only* applies > to MinGW toolchains shipping without C++11 <thread> and <mutex> support. > That means (from the limited information available in their documentation) > that mingw-w64 is fine, and even mingw when using thread-posix is fine.
That's clear now, thanks. > 2) When I listed my use cases, I meant the use cases for the *specific* > narrow set of non-C++11 <thread> providing toolchains. There are many good > and valid uses cases for MinGW in general, I just didn't see the need to > enumerate them. But for whatever reasons, some folks are avoiding the more > modern MinGW toolchains, and I think we need to understand why. The best thing for understanding their reasons is to ask them to speak up. My experience on the MinGW/MinGW-w64 communities is that those who choose MinGW is because of ignorance about MinGW-w64 and because there are lots of documents on the 'net that references MinGW. MinGW is, to all practical effects, a zombie project and there is no reason to prefer it over MinGW-w64 nowadays. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
