pcwang-thead added a comment. In D112921#3473022 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112921#3473022>, @ldionne wrote:
> (BTW I strongly support this patch, I just think we should do it properly on > all platforms from the start :-) I couldn't agree with you more, but I have no idea how to implement it. :-( In D112921#3473080 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112921#3473080>, @rjmccall wrote: > Ideally, I think, we would set this up to work something like `ObjCRuntime`, > where we're making queries to a common place that contains all the > information necessary to decide what runtime features are available. In > particular, we shouldn't treat Apple platforms as forever unique in providing > a stable runtime interface with availability gating. > > Now, we don't necessarily need the same complexity that `ObjCRuntime` > supports, where the user can tell us to use a different runtime and runtime > version from the default for the platform. On the other hand, maybe we want > that, because it's a good way to deal with the compatibility problem that we > have on non-Apple platforms. Users could tell us that they're targeting e.g. > libsupc++ v4.8, and we could tell them in response that sized allocation > isn't supported. And if we get them to tell us that, rather than "I have > sized allocation support" specifically, it sets us up well to solve similar > problems in the future. You mean that we may provide a option `-fc++-runtime` likes `-fobjc-runtime`, or extend `-stdlib` to specify version number in the form of `-stdlib=libsupc++-v4.8`? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D112921/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D112921 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
