Hi
On 16/11/2020 23:29, Sérgio Martins via Development wrote:
On 2020-11-16 21:57, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Monday, 16 November 2020 13:38:06 PST Cristian Adam wrote:
LLVM.org clang.exe binary reports the x86_64-pc-windows-msvc target,
which
is Clang/MSVC. clang-cl is just a different command line options parser,
which always sets the *-msvc target.
Clang/MinGW is something that ends up in *-gnu as target. That's the
case
for winlibs and llvm-mingw.
I see, thanks.
So, what's wrong with llvm-mingw?
Probably the prebuilt toolchain Tony is using (WinLibs) has an old
standard library.
The problem is not specific to Clang perse.
But why do we want clang-MinGW to begin with ? MinGW is niche as it is.
I don't see anyone wanting this combo.
clang-MSVC on the other hand is useful as it means a better compiler
frontend (clang) using a better standard library on Windows (msvc).
As far as I know, people *do* want an open alternative that does not
involve Microsoft software. That's where mingw comes into play. As we
cannot support an unlimited amount of configurations, it looks like we
will go the clang-mingw route instead of clang-msvc.
Friedmann also mentions "We want clang.cl only (as discussed many times
already)." (QTQAINFRA-2139)
Regards,
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
