erichkeane added a subscriber: jfb. erichkeane added a comment. In D114639#3162032 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639#3162032>, @RKSimon wrote:
> In D114639#3162000 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639#3162000>, @mehdi_amini > wrote: > >> In D114639#3161303 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639#3161303>, @erichkeane >> wrote: >> >>> IMO, if we're updating the MSVC versions, we should do the same for the >>> GCC/Clang/AppleClang versions too. For example, GCC 5.1 is from 2015, and >>> Clang 3.5 is from 2014. >> >> We've always handled MSVC update separately I believe, we can't just take >> the "last two version of MSVC" guideline and update every compiler each time. My understanding is this would only be the ~3rd time we've done this. The last time we did this, we did them all together. >> (I'm not against updating our toolchain to support c++17, but that's >> orthogonal to the MSVC-specific update) > > I recently started a C++17 conversation here, but I agree its orthogonal to > the VS version bump: > https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-November/153882.html I also am not particularly 'interested' in the C++17 conversation here. My bigger concern is that the last time we did the version bumps (which @jfb and I lead), there was significant interest to minimize the changes to the toolchains across platforms, which was a significant motivator to change them all at once the last time. If there is sufficient justification here to update based on the 'last 2 releases', I'd strongly suspect/believe there are similar justifications for the other two, of which C++17 is just one. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
