Are the minimum versions detectable in the processor? If so it seems like we could safely configure this change that way.
/Eric On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Duncan Exon Smith <dexonsm...@apple.com> wrote: > I haven't looked at the patch, but yes, many developers on our platform > back-deploy to older OS versions (and we support that via Clang flags, > e.g., -miphoneos-version-min=8.0). They always build against the newest > SDK/headers. > > -- dpnes > > > On Dec 5, 2016, at 00:35, Eric Fiselier via Phabricator < > revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > EricWF added a reviewer: dexonsmith. > > EricWF added a subscriber: dexonsmith. > > EricWF added a comment. > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27387#613071, @smeenai wrote: > > > >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27387#612975, @EricWF wrote: > >> > >>> I wonder if we should consider this a breaking ABI change and control > it using a `_LIBCPP_ABI` macro. @mclow.lists thoughts? > >> > >> > >> This is forward-compatible (as in clients built against an older libc++ > would be happy with this version) but not backwards-compatible (as in > clients built against this version would not be able to run against an > older libc++). Has libc++ been aiming to maintain compatibility in both > directions? > > > > > > Hmm, I'm not exactly sure. We don't make backward incompatible changes > to existing code often. I wonder if vendors like Apple require such > backwards compatibility. Maybe @dexonsmith can weigh in? > > > > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D27387 > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
