erichkeane added a comment. In D114639#3162157 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639#3162157>, @mehdi_amini wrote:
> In D114639#3162141 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639#3162141>, @erichkeane > wrote: > >>> Right, but last time we did the motivation was specifically to get to >>> c++14, while here the motivation is to drop an old MSVC according to the >>> MSVC-specific support we intend to provide. >> >> My memory is that that was _A_ motivation, not the only one. There were >> quite a few GCC bugs that we were getting away from as well that was my >> primary justification for pushing it at the time, though the C++14 >> motivation was ALSO tempting/appreciated. > > I'm fairly sure that at least JF who pushed for it was motivated by C++14, > here is the RFC: > https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-January/129452.html > The update of toolchain has always historically been measured by the amount > of features we get from the update, in particular while compilers were > getting support for new standard feature during C++11 adoption it was really > a game of matching the various compiler, looks at potential updates and what > this would enable. Though I agree that we're somehow frequently working > around issues specific to gcc-5 (I'd say my gcc-5.4 bot breaks once a week on > average), and migrating from old toolchains can have value on its own. Note that the above link was the LAST RFC, after JF and I had spent about 8 months trying to update, part of which required https://reviews.llvm.org/rG6e69db5a2dfe8cf4658654714c506422e31a19a2 to happen. At least in our private discussions, JF stated frustration at working around old Clang bugs. 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
