mehdi_amini added a comment. In D130689#3686760 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130689#3686760>, @h-vetinari wrote:
> My point boils down to: "written using standard C++17 > code" does not sound at all like "core language, no stdlib", but very much > like "core+stdlib". We're allowing C++17 library feature, this isn't covered by the "vendor extensions" part but by the following paragraph: > Nevertheless, we restrict ourselves to features which are available in the > major toolchains supported as host compilers This includes not only missing features in libstdc++ but also gcc and clang bugs/limitations that we'll have to work around. > This is also the first time this split becomes relevant AFAIK I don't : the migration to C++11 was done the same way, piecewise by making sure that when we start using a new feature (core or stdlib) it actually works on the stated minimum version of the toolchains we support. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130689/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130689 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
