On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <pidgeo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 8/14/2013 3:07 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>
>> Over the past few weeks, I've had the build completely break three time
>> due to issues with Apple clang 4.1, which tells me that we're not doing any
>> regular builds with Apple clang 4.1 (c.f. Bug 892594, Bug 904108, and the
>> fact that the current tip of m-i won't link with Apple clang 4.1).
>>
>> I'll note that the bugs I mention above are both working around actual
>> bugs in clang, not missing features.
>>
>> Any time I ask in #developers, the answer seems to be that our minimum
>> version for Apple clang is still 4.1. I would propose that (unless we're
>> adapting some of our infra builders to check that we can at least compile
>> and link with 4.1), we formally abandon 4.1 as a supported compiler.
>>
>
> For what it's worth, the usual reference point for clang versions is
> synchronized with the LLVM versions, so the current tip-of-trunk is 3.3;
> when dealing with Clang compatibility, all version references refer to that
> internal number, so Clang 4.1 is a version which doesn't exist yet :-) .
> Guessing that "Apple clang 4.1" means "the clang shipped with Xcode 4.1",
> and using Wikipedia to get version info, this means that you're trying to
> use roughly Clang 3.0 ("based on LLVM 3.0svn"). We've never set a minimum
> Clang version to my knowledge for C++11 support (given that Clang has been
> ahead of the curve here), but I consider Clang < 3.1 unbuildable at least
> on Linux.
Should we make this explicit and fail builds with clang < 3.2?
--
Ehsan
<http://ehsanakhgari.org/>
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
