mstorsjo wrote: > 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.
Yeah, bumping the requirement to those versions should at least be quite safe. I agree that it's perhaps not good to expressly claim to support something ancient that really isn't tested, but I don't see a need to have it as strictly versioned as e.g. libcxx/libcxxabi either, by expressly disallowing building with older versions. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/164535 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
