On Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:02:06 pm David Chisnall wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2013, at 15:57, John Baldwin wrote:
> To summarise the current issues:
>
> Our libstdc++ is ancient. It supports C++98 well, it kind-of supports
C++03. It doesn't support C++11 at all and never will, nor does it support
On Aug 29, 2013, at 11:02 AM, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2013, at 15:57, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>> I have not seen any convincing
>> argument as to why leaving GCC in the base for 10.x impedes anything.
>> Because clang isn't sufficient for so many non-x86 platforms we can't
>> really st
On 29 Aug 2013, at 15:57, John Baldwin wrote:
> I have not seen any convincing
> argument as to why leaving GCC in the base for 10.x impedes anything.
> Because clang isn't sufficient for so many non-x86 platforms we can't
> really start using clang-specific features yet anyway.
Apparently I h
On Aug 25, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-24 at 23:44 +0100, David Chisnall wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2013, at 23:42, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>>
>>> And i found PR about clang and mplayer: ports/176272
>>> This PR contains log with build error log.
>>
>> Please file clang bu
On Aug 29, 2013, at 8:57 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, August 24, 2013 7:19:22 am David Chisnall wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2013, at 11:30, "Sam Fourman Jr." wrote:
>>
>>> So I vote, let's not give ourselves the burden of "lugging" dead weight in
>>> base
>>> for another 5 years. (in 2017 do
On Aug 27, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 08/25/13 18:41, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
>>> I object. Many ports that compiles perfectly on gcc 4.2.1 can't be
>>> compiled with lang/gcc. I checked this once and the number of ports
>>> tha
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 7:19:22 am David Chisnall wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2013, at 11:30, "Sam Fourman Jr." wrote:
>
> > So I vote, let's not give ourselves the burden of "lugging" dead weight in
> > base
> > for another 5 years. (in 2017 do we still want to be worrying about gcc in
> > base?)
>