[llvm-dev] [RFC] migrating past C++11 (original) (raw)

Brooks Davis via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jan 22 14:15:04 PST 2019

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:44:54PM -0800, JF Bastien via llvm-dev wrote:

I haven???t documented FreeBSD / NetBSD / Fedora / MacOS / MSVC, and nobody complained at the BoF. I???d like to understand if we should care about documenting these: ideally the toolchain update policy would list which platforms need to be considered and how far back in time is relevant.

For FreeBSD, the relevant issue version included in latest supported releases on each branch is (since we need to be able to build the HEAD OS version from at least the previous release.) That's currently 6.0 for both FreeBSD 11.2 and 12.0.

In the past, we've not done major toolchain upgrades on release branches, but that changed in FreeBSD 11 and I personally expect use to keep doing them to at least some extent. The pain of maintaining packages on top of clang 3.4 in FreeBSD 10.4 was just too much near its end of life.

We also support many LLVM version in our ports/package collection. Currently 3.5, 3.8, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, and an erratically updated snapshot of the head of the tree. Since we currently bundle a specific version into the release branch, these versions don't really enter into the picture for minimum version and they don't provide a C++ standard library and depend on the one in the base OS.

Long story short, release branches currently have pretty up to date clang/llvm/libc++ versions and we're certainly fine with a move to C++14. (My guess is that C++17 would be fine as well.)

-- Brooks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190122/23ba4b0f/attachment.sig>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list