Setting default dialect to C++11

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
57 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev


On 03/06/2017 04:22 AM, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev wrote:
I belive that users will expect to compile C++11 code on default because of GCC. I think moving to C++14 (with the Richard's policy from June) is a good choice, because of user experiance of developers (specially new). Is there a list of things that might break after switching to C++11? I wonder how much bugs could be found easily by clang-tidy (or to implement it as clang warning), so that prior to switch users would know what would break.

There is a pretty good list in Appendix C of the C++ standard. Also, see:

  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6399615/what-breaking-changes-are-introduced-in-c11

which summarizes most of those and covers some others.

 -Hal


Piotr




_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 6 March 2017 at 06:37, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 03/06/2017 04:22 AM, Piotr Padlewski via cfe-dev wrote:

I belive that users will expect to compile C++11 code on default because of GCC. I think moving to C++14 (with the Richard's policy from June) is a good choice, because of user experiance of developers (specially new). Is there a list of things that might break after switching to C++11? I wonder how much bugs could be found easily by clang-tidy (or to implement it as clang warning), so that prior to switch users would know what would break.

There is a pretty good list in Appendix C of the C++ standard. Also, see:

  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6399615/what-breaking-changes-are-introduced-in-c11

which summarizes most of those and covers some others.

The two largest issues (by *far*) we encountered when porting our codebase from C++98 to C++11 were:

1) narrowing conversions in list initialization; char buf[] = { 'f', 'o', 'o', '0' + n, 0 }; is now ill-formed
2) UDLs versus macros; printf("%10"PRIuS, my_size_t); and "in "__FILE__":" are now ill-formed

Clang provides warning flags to disable the error for the first case (-Wno-c++11-narrowing) and for the first half of the second case (-Wno-reserved-user-defined-literal).

Compared to the above, silent changes in behavior were extremely rare.

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
> Richard Smith asked:
>> Would raising the language standard to C++14 cause problems for PS4
>> or MSVC? Is the constraint there "at least C++11" (because, say, the
>> system headers are written in C++11) or "exactly C++11" (and if so,
>> why?)?
>
> A default dialect for a particular platform is not solely dependent on
> the toolchain; the platform must support the appropriate standard
> headers and libraries.  I have not investigated whether we have (or
> plan to have) what's needed for 14 or 17, although I can ask.  (Seems
> to me I've done this before but I can't find a record of it.)  Note
> that we do not use either libcxx or libstdc++.
> --paulr

My management is not opposed to raising the default to C++14 in 5.0.
Obviously we'll want to crank up our internal testing, and make sure
we have the new library bits in place, but we have time to do that.
Thanks,
--paulr

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 8 March 2017 at 10:25, Robinson, Paul <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Richard Smith asked:
>> Would raising the language standard to C++14 cause problems for PS4
>> or MSVC? Is the constraint there "at least C++11" (because, say, the
>> system headers are written in C++11) or "exactly C++11" (and if so,
>> why?)?
>
> A default dialect for a particular platform is not solely dependent on
> the toolchain; the platform must support the appropriate standard
> headers and libraries.  I have not investigated whether we have (or
> plan to have) what's needed for 14 or 17, although I can ask.  (Seems
> to me I've done this before but I can't find a record of it.)  Note
> that we do not use either libcxx or libstdc++.
> --paulr

My management is not opposed to raising the default to C++14 in 5.0.
Obviously we'll want to crank up our internal testing, and make sure
we have the new library bits in place, but we have time to do that.

Would you also be prepared to raise the default C standard from C99 to C11 for PS4? Ideally I'd like for us to get the PS4 defaults to match the Clang defaults for other toolchains where possible -- though clearly this change is separate from the change in C++ language standard default. (If I remember correctly, the issue here was the target libc not fully supporting C11.)

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 3 March 2017 at 10:15, Richard Smith via cfe-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Would raising the language standard to C++14 cause problems for PS4 or MSVC?
> Is the constraint there "at least C++11" (because, say, the system headers
> are written in C++11) or "exactly C++11" (and if so, why?)?

The recent Fortran thread in llvm-dev reminded me of this. We should
get it done! We don't want to be sat here in 2067 defaulting to a
language no-one has used for 50 years.

Tim.
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 18 May 2017 at 18:30, Tim Northover <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 3 March 2017 at 10:15, Richard Smith via cfe-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Would raising the language standard to C++14 cause problems for PS4 or MSVC?
> Is the constraint there "at least C++11" (because, say, the system headers
> are written in C++11) or "exactly C++11" (and if so, why?)?

The recent Fortran thread in llvm-dev reminded me of this. We should
get it done! We don't want to be sat here in 2067 defaulting to a
language no-one has used for 50 years.

Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in the test suite). Sooner is better: we need as much time as possible to fix any issues uncovered prior to Clang 5. Sadly I don't have time to work on this right now; volunteers would be very welcome!

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 18 May 2017 at 18:56, Richard Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that
> we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for
> someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in
> the test suite).

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully I can at least get some
numbers here by the end of the day. Possibly patches; what's our
preferred solution to failures: fix the code (within reason), or
-std=c++98?

Tim.
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 18 May 2017 at 19:38, Tim Northover <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 18 May 2017 at 18:56, Richard Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that
> we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for
> someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in
> the test suite).

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully I can at least get some
numbers here by the end of the day. Possibly patches; what's our
preferred solution to failures: fix the code (within reason), or
-std=c++98?

If the difference is interesting, test it in both modes. If the test is C++98-specific or has uninteresting diagnostic differences, -std=c++98.

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev

Not to forget that Charles Li did a pile of work over the past year or so to tidy up a lot of the tests.  Given that the PS4 target already defaults to C++11, I should hope there would be little left to do.

--paulr

 

From: cfe-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith via cfe-dev
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:30 PM
To: Tim Northover
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

 

On 18 May 2017 at 19:38, Tim Northover <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 18 May 2017 at 18:56, Richard Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that
> we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for
> someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in
> the test suite).

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully I can at least get some
numbers here by the end of the day. Possibly patches; what's our
preferred solution to failures: fix the code (within reason), or
-std=c++98?

 

If the difference is interesting, test it in both modes. If the test is C++98-specific or has uninteresting diagnostic differences, -std=c++98.


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 19 May 2017, at 02:56, Richard Smith via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in the test suite). Sooner is better: we need as much time as possible to fix any issues uncovered prior to Clang 5. Sadly I don't have time to work on this right now; volunteers would be very welcome!

If there is a patch, we can try applying it to the base system compiler and clang from ports and try building the FreeBSD ports collection.  My expectation is that we’ll have to fix a few thousand ports and this will cause us vast quantities of pain for no practical benefit, but we can run the experiment...

David

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:46 AM, David Chisnall via cfe-dev
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 19 May 2017, at 02:56, Richard Smith via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in the test suite). Sooner is better: we need as much time as possible to fix any issues uncovered prior to Clang 5. Sadly I don't have time to work on this right now; volunteers would be very welcome!
>
> If there is a patch, we can try applying it to the base system compiler and clang from ports and try building the FreeBSD ports collection.  My expectation is that we’ll have to fix a few thousand ports and this will cause us vast quantities of pain for no practical benefit, but we can run the experiment...

You can always set distribution-wide CXXFLAGS to include -std=c++98,
same happens on Linux when we upgrade to a new and shiny gcc. Nothing
new here.

Regards,
ismail
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 18 May 2017 11:18 pm, "Robinson, Paul" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not to forget that Charles Li did a pile of work over the past year or so to tidy up a lot of the tests.  Given that the PS4 target already defaults to C++11, I should hope there would be little left to do.

Right, and indeed we have buildbots that test that a C++11 default works. So the remaining cleanups would be for C++14-specific issues, which should be minimal in comparison to the great work Charles did.

--paulr

 

From: cfe-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith via cfe-dev
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:30 PM
To: Tim Northover
Cc: [hidden email]


Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

 

On 18 May 2017 at 19:38, Tim Northover <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 18 May 2017 at 18:56, Richard Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that
> we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for
> someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in
> the test suite).

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully I can at least get some
numbers here by the end of the day. Possibly patches; what's our
preferred solution to failures: fix the code (within reason), or
-std=c++98?

 

If the difference is interesting, test it in both modes. If the test is C++98-specific or has uninteresting diagnostic differences, -std=c++98.



_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 18 May 2017 at 19:38, Tim Northover <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully I can at least get some
> numbers here by the end of the day. Possibly patches; what's our
> preferred solution to failures: fix the code (within reason), or
> -std=c++98?

I have some results on the regression tests now. There were 17 failures:

  + 4 Appeared to be testing older behaviour intentionally.
  + 3 crashes, all in ExprConstant.cpp, 2 possibly the same place.
  + 3 failures in operator new[] because C++14 now inserts an
implicit-cast to size_t for the array size. So some of our overflow
checks while CGing new disappear.
  + 6 failures because C++14 changes the rules on user-defined
literals which breaks _Complex literals.
  + 1 of the same for "half" literals.

That complex one seems to be an incompatiblity with GCC, which keeps
its builtin literals in gnu++14 mode (but not c++14 mode).

Tim.
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
On 19 May 2017, at 09:52, İsmail Dönmez <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:46 AM, David Chisnall via cfe-dev
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 19 May 2017, at 02:56, Richard Smith via cfe-dev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in the test suite). Sooner is better: we need as much time as possible to fix any issues uncovered prior to Clang 5. Sadly I don't have time to work on this right now; volunteers would be very welcome!
>>
>> If there is a patch, we can try applying it to the base system compiler and clang from ports and try building the FreeBSD ports collection.  My expectation is that we’ll have to fix a few thousand ports and this will cause us vast quantities of pain for no practical benefit, but we can run the experiment...
>
> You can always set distribution-wide CXXFLAGS to include -std=c++98,
> same happens on Linux when we upgrade to a new and shiny gcc. Nothing
> new here.

If only the set of things that respected CXXFLAGS and the set of things likely to break with a newer default dialect were significantly overlapping.

David

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev

From the “Subject” and earlier messages in this thread, it would appear that the proposed default Standard is C++11; but the words in this message and a few other messages seem to suggest that the proposed default Standard is C++14.

 

I’m just curious about the proposed default, is it to be C++11 or C++14?  I don’t have any argument against changing the default to either, but would like to know what is really being proposed.

 

Thanks,

 

            MartinO

 

From: cfe-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith via cfe-dev
Sent: 19 May 2017 18:12
To: Robinson, Paul <[hidden email]>
Cc: Clang Dev <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

 

On 18 May 2017 11:18 pm, "Robinson, Paul" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not to forget that Charles Li did a pile of work over the past year or so to tidy up a lot of the tests.  Given that the PS4 target already defaults to C++11, I should hope there would be little left to do.

Right, and indeed we have buildbots that test that a C++11 default works. So the remaining cleanups would be for C++14-specific issues, which should be minimal in comparison to the great work Charles did.

--paulr

 

From: cfe-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith via cfe-dev
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:30 PM
To: Tim Northover
Cc: [hidden email]


Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

 

On 18 May 2017 at 19:38, Tim Northover <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 18 May 2017 at 18:56, Richard Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that
> we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for
> someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in
> the test suite).

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully I can at least get some
numbers here by the end of the day. Possibly patches; what's our
preferred solution to failures: fix the code (within reason), or
-std=c++98?

 

If the difference is interesting, test it in both modes. If the test is C++98-specific or has uninteresting diagnostic differences, -std=c++98.

 


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
The proposal is to go straight to C++14. That both matches GCC's current default and the suggested policy of setting the default to the most recent published standard for which we have sufficiently mature support.

On 21 May 2017 at 03:54, Martin J. O'Riordan <[hidden email]> wrote:

From the “Subject” and earlier messages in this thread, it would appear that the proposed default Standard is C++11; but the words in this message and a few other messages seem to suggest that the proposed default Standard is C++14.

 

I’m just curious about the proposed default, is it to be C++11 or C++14?  I don’t have any argument against changing the default to either, but would like to know what is really being proposed.

 

Thanks,

 

            MartinO

 

From: cfe-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith via cfe-dev
Sent: 19 May 2017 18:12
To: Robinson, Paul <[hidden email]>
Cc: Clang Dev <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

 

On 18 May 2017 11:18 pm, "Robinson, Paul" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not to forget that Charles Li did a pile of work over the past year or so to tidy up a lot of the tests.  Given that the PS4 target already defaults to C++11, I should hope there would be little left to do.

Right, and indeed we have buildbots that test that a C++11 default works. So the remaining cleanups would be for C++14-specific issues, which should be minimal in comparison to the great work Charles did.

--paulr

 

From: cfe-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith via cfe-dev
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:30 PM
To: Tim Northover
Cc: [hidden email]


Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

 

On 18 May 2017 at 19:38, Tim Northover <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 18 May 2017 at 18:56, Richard Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that
> we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for
> someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in
> the test suite).

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully I can at least get some
numbers here by the end of the day. Possibly patches; what's our
preferred solution to failures: fix the code (within reason), or
-std=c++98?

 

If the difference is interesting, test it in both modes. If the test is C++98-specific or has uninteresting diagnostic differences, -std=c++98.

 



_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Setting default dialect to C++11

Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev

Thanks Richard,

 

Any chance the “Subject” could change to “RE: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++14”, simply to make it clear what is being discussed (I didn’t want to pre-emptively make such a change since I don’t own the discussion)?  I’m quite happy with the default being C++14, and for that matter, soon defaulting to C++17, but the discussion should be clear and unambiguous - IMO defaulting to tracking the current Standard is the better choice, with ‘-std=’ being used to specify an earlier Standard, or a proposed and experimental future standard.

 

            MartinO

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith
Sent: 21 May 2017 20:23
To: Martin J. O'Riordan <[hidden email]>
Cc: Robinson, Paul <[hidden email]>; clang developer list <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

 

The proposal is to go straight to C++14. That both matches GCC's current default and the suggested policy of setting the default to the most recent published standard for which we have sufficiently mature support.

 

On 21 May 2017 at 03:54, Martin J. O'Riordan <[hidden email]> wrote:

From the “Subject” and earlier messages in this thread, it would appear that the proposed default Standard is C++11; but the words in this message and a few other messages seem to suggest that the proposed default Standard is C++14.

 

I’m just curious about the proposed default, is it to be C++11 or C++14?  I don’t have any argument against changing the default to either, but would like to know what is really being proposed.

 

Thanks,

 

            MartinO

 

From: cfe-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith via cfe-dev
Sent: 19 May 2017 18:12
To: Robinson, Paul <[hidden email]>
Cc: Clang Dev <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

 

On 18 May 2017 11:18 pm, "Robinson, Paul" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not to forget that Charles Li did a pile of work over the past year or so to tidy up a lot of the tests.  Given that the PS4 target already defaults to C++11, I should hope there would be little left to do.

Right, and indeed we have buildbots that test that a C++11 default works. So the remaining cleanups would be for C++14-specific issues, which should be minimal in comparison to the great work Charles did.

--paulr

 

From: cfe-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Richard Smith via cfe-dev
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:30 PM
To: Tim Northover
Cc: [hidden email]


Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] Setting default dialect to C++11

 

On 18 May 2017 at 19:38, Tim Northover <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 18 May 2017 at 18:56, Richard Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agreed. I think there's sufficient (although not unanimous) agreement that
> we should increase our default language standard; what we need is for
> someone to work through the immediate fallout from doing so (particularly in
> the test suite).

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Hopefully I can at least get some
numbers here by the end of the day. Possibly patches; what's our
preferred solution to failures: fix the code (within reason), or
-std=c++98?

 

If the difference is interesting, test it in both modes. If the test is C++98-specific or has uninteresting diagnostic differences, -std=c++98.

 

 


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
123
Loading...