[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