philnik777 wrote: > > > Hmm, the unwind docs claim gcc 4.7 or clang 3.5 which seems optimistic? > > > > > > Yeah, exactly. I would be _very_ surprised if that was actually true. > > Well contrary to libcxxabi and libcxx, libunwind doesn't really do much > advanced that requires specific compiler features (other than new additions > like PAC stuff), so it wouldn't surprise me if it essentially worked fine, > potentially modulo one or two trivial details or so.
That's true, but there is new code added from time to time, and I'm not convinced that it doesn't hit some bug in some compiler version given our test coverage. I'm generally in favour of "if you don't test it, don't claim support for it". Or do you think we should aim to support such old compiler versions? I would think that at least the general LLVM minimum requirements should apply (i.e. Clang 5 and GCC 7.4). That wouldn't help in this case, but these compiler versions might at least be actually tested by someone somewhere. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/164535 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
