mehdi_amini added a comment. In D114639#3162141 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639#3162141>, @erichkeane wrote:
>> Right, but last time we did the motivation was specifically to get to c++14, >> while here the motivation is to drop an old MSVC according to the >> MSVC-specific support we intend to provide. > > My memory is that that was _A_ motivation, not the only one. There were > quite a few GCC bugs that we were getting away from as well that was my > primary justification for pushing it at the time, though the C++14 motivation > was ALSO tempting/appreciated. I'm fairly sure that at least JF who pushed for it was motivated by C++14, here is the RFC: https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-January/129452.html The update of toolchain has always historically been measured by the amount of features we get from the update, in particular while compilers were getting support for new standard feature during C++11 adoption it was really a game of matching the various compiler, looks at potential updates and what this would enable. Though I agree that we're somehow frequently working around issues specific to gcc-5 (I'd say my gcc-5.4 bot breaks once a week on average), and migrating from old toolchains can have value on its own. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114639 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
