From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC1E138247 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:17:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8C9DE0AFF; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:17:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ABE3E0AD6 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:17:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (77-254-167-184.adsl.inetia.pl [77.254.167.184]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C02A233F5C8; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:07:26 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: cbergstrom@pathscale.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] How to support C++11 in libraries? Message-ID: <20131218190726.75dd7889@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <52B15ABA.5040909@pathscale.com> References: <20131218085447.56d1e133@gentoo.org> <52B15ABA.5040909@pathscale.com> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA512; boundary="Sig_/Cjd08bBk7FA3xD7yZsq5N4r"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 16c10f77-711c-49c2-b9a6-534bdc7fc4db X-Archives-Hash: bd028d15e8b8abfa0c49feb1af7e07eb --Sig_/Cjd08bBk7FA3xD7yZsq5N4r Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2013-12-18, o godz. 15:20:10 "C. Bergstr=C3=B6m" napisa=C5=82(a): > If the only driving motivation is lldb then I think this isn't worth the= =20 > effort and I wonder what may be incompatible as a result. Long term it=20 > certainly should happen - I can't/won't argue or disagree with the long=20 > term merits, but when.. and who will do all that work.. >=20 > Just a heads up that clang/llvm will (have in svn trunk) force building=20 > with c++11 for the next major release (6 months from now). So unless=20 > some 3rd party goes and backports or removes the c++11 pieces - this=20 > will add to the list of c++11 only software in the near future. Well, last time I was asked to enable C++11 in llvm I answered that I'd delayed it because of the potential ABI incompatibility. While lldb was what made me revisit the subject, I think it's something we will need to handle anyway. I'd rather find a good solution right now while we don't have to hurry. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/Cjd08bBk7FA3xD7yZsq5N4r Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJSseRjXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZOUzIQAMl4o8b99Bv4DHSo+4p43UWw 8WSmFHciBdMzwtinqS5iprkcAbUCMy2K7Y3d2yDLcvjF9KdZZvrfNLVxK8OkXmnP oVEvmF6F5lidU0juQrcudEIhIi3b4aA2SN4DBZej7a+vtAR3+BH+uEIiOmDoRWg8 YJFEbm4Fo6VRtUUMHJW0mZ2GHOYdoB0WHA/8TeAnS6ToDKvq7Xt7QaF0ZG592qNm GEfHXkb5+hqSGBW6wuT2NZk/W3n2neUCFlA3Sh9HJWkZqBLS8bOryAndX3w0cQ0f mpsanScG7LaNkkzihmoKyorIDJSVQemHVvY9RLEtHGPHPPExw0TleCsuftgveP0W YbP4gpRst6RY1bK422FX89AQfF7Ude5DBsY1r03aiOngkXgcT8HWkMFnH9ioHR1s 6tKq+l5ORiYlrIoMfPhfyrEqi/BJ0Jw+d6yTADG4qJqMp80ZlX3h1h2UtlLrtgqo S074nsZuX86lLTRnIDDq62HsJwsGxAmPNXdgdhA4X5OOhsFwpPlbYJShwQjcSo1M brCx+0ThvrQ6K/ulu5eT3eSxGmvHg111051Tg6+UGFCjQzx0mpz6843/6V9fi0IS AWwRqLyUGvetTHBLv3yWsItnnBy+XRJOhvJnHOGraU16HnFIdwjjPB0dKQmy0Tz3 /sffj2jUtHJ05rpmTh/U =Fa1I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Cjd08bBk7FA3xD7yZsq5N4r--