thakis added a comment. In D136533#3893032 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136533#3893032>, @ldionne wrote:
> In D136533#3892949 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D136533#3892949>, @ldionne wrote: > >> 2. Shipping this change does mean that anyone building anything with a new >> Clang and a not-yet-updated libc++ with a deployment target before 10.15 (or >> whatever first version we shipped filesystem in) will fail. IMO that's kind >> of annoying, but may be OK if we fix libc++ first. > > I guess the interesting question here would be: @thakis, is there a reason > why you are using the SDK-provided libc++ but the tip-of-trunk Clang for > building Chrome? (I feel like we've talked about this before but I don't > remember). Because that's what you recommended :) We used to use the just-built libc++ but that had other issues. Previous discussions that I found in a hurry: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128927#3670288 , and https://reviews.llvm.org/D82702#2153627 and onward. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D136533/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D136533 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
