[Info-vax] LLVM, was: Re: And another one bites the dust....
Arne Vajhøj
arne at vajhoej.dk
Tue Feb 22 18:48:58 EST 2022
On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2022-02-21 19:21:35 +0000, Simon Clubley said:
>> I'm also less than impressed in how they keep updating the toolchain
>> source code with the very latest C++ standards so you need the latest
>> C++ compilers to build it. (In fairness, that knowledge is from
>> several versions back, so I don't know if they have matured somewhat
>> recently and stopped chasing the "nice new shiny" at every opportunity.)
>
> This is not unusual for any self-hosting compiler, clang or otherwise,
> and particularly for any self-hosting compilers with an evolving
> language specification.
>
>> This is exactly the kind of thing that should be easy to build
>> reasonably quickly with any reasonable C++ compiler. :-(
>
> Could you point to what you might consider "any reasonable C++
> compiler"? 🤪 The C++ language is quite powerful, and the resulting
> compilers tend complex. And many developers will want or need different
> C++ subsets.
I don't think the request was to be able to build with a
compiler supporting a subset of C++ XX - I think the request
was for being able to build with a compiler fully
supporting C++ XX but where XX is not latest and greatest.
That makes bootstrapping a bit tricky.
Arne
More information about the Info-vax
mailing list