Dnia 2013-12-18, o godz. 15:20:10 "C. Bergström" <cbergst...@pathscale.com> napisał(a):
> If the only driving motivation is lldb then I think this isn't worth the > effort and I wonder what may be incompatible as a result. Long term it > certainly should happen - I can't/won't argue or disagree with the long > term merits, but when.. and who will do all that work.. > > Just a heads up that clang/llvm will (have in svn trunk) force building > with c++11 for the next major release (6 months from now). So unless > some 3rd party goes and backports or removes the c++11 pieces - this > will add to the list of c++11 only software in the near future. Well, last time I was asked to enable C++11 in llvm I answered that I'd delayed it because of the potential ABI incompatibility. While lldb was what made me revisit the subject, I think it's something we will need to handle anyway. I'd rather find a good solution right now while we don't have to hurry. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
