erichkeane added a comment. In D114639#3183244 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639#3183244>, @Meinersbur wrote:
> ping? > > @erichkeane Since you are pushing for upgrade the gcc/clang requirement as > well, would you take care of that? I was looking into the patch to do so, but I don't have a good idea what I should update the GCC/Clang/AppleClang requirements TO. I thought I saw someone at one point suggest GCC6/clang6, but I can't find that anymore, did I just imagine it? I presume any such patch would have similar issues with buildbots unfortunately. That said; My understanding is that updating the GCC/Clang minimum versions requires altering our 'minimum platform' significantly (since you cannot ship a dynamically linked version of clang to a system with an older stdlibc++ version than you built it with), and thus would be more controversial than this patch (where updating the C++ runtime version on a system is a much lower barrier to run). Because of that, and because my concern on the RFC seems to be mine alone, I see no reason to have my concerns 'block' this patch as it is. Additionally, since the RFC to move us to C++17 didn't seem to gain any traction, I'd presume the appetite for changing the linux/apple toolchain doesn't seem to be there. TL;DR: Don't block this on my concerns. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
