On Monday, 16 November 2020 14:29:36 PST Sérgio Martins via Development wrote: > > So, what's wrong with llvm-mingw?
I'd understood that llvm-mingw and llvm + winlibs were two separate builds. So what's wrong with the former? > Probably the prebuilt toolchain Tony is using (WinLibs) has an old > standard library. > The problem is not specific to Clang perse. That's what I understand too now. Looks like that Winlibs is a complete no-go then. > But why do we want clang-MinGW to begin with ? MinGW is niche as it is. > I don't see anyone wanting this combo. MinGW is hardly niche (are you confusing it with MSYS/Cygwin?). Whether it's compiled with GCC or Clang shouldn't be an issue. > clang-MSVC on the other hand is useful as it means a better compiler > frontend (clang) using a better standard library on Windows (msvc). Most importantly, it also has a modern C99-capable runtime and it supports thread_local. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
