I haven't looked at the patch, but yes, many developers on our platform back-deploy to older OS versions (and we support that via Clang flags, e.g., -miphoneos-version-min=8.0). They always build against the newest SDK/headers.
-- dpnes > On Dec 5, 2016, at 00:35, Eric Fiselier via Phabricator > <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > > EricWF added a reviewer: dexonsmith. > EricWF added a subscriber: dexonsmith. > EricWF added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27387#613071, @smeenai wrote: > >> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D27387#612975, @EricWF wrote: >> >>> I wonder if we should consider this a breaking ABI change and control it >>> using a `_LIBCPP_ABI` macro. @mclow.lists thoughts? >> >> >> This is forward-compatible (as in clients built against an older libc++ >> would be happy with this version) but not backwards-compatible (as in >> clients built against this version would not be able to run against an older >> libc++). Has libc++ been aiming to maintain compatibility in both directions? > > > Hmm, I'm not exactly sure. We don't make backward incompatible changes to > existing code often. I wonder if vendors like Apple require such backwards > compatibility. Maybe @dexonsmith can weigh in? > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D27387 > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
