| 1 |
On 12/18/13 02:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, folks. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
Hi |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
<snip> |
| 7 |
> Basically, I've hit this with sys-devel/llvm. A user has requested lldb |
| 8 |
> support to be enabled in the ebuild [2]. Sadly, lldb requires C++11 to |
| 9 |
> be used, and this means that whole LLVM needs to become C++11 enabled. |
| 10 |
> And then, it would be at least recommended that all reverse deps become |
| 11 |
> C++11 enabled as well. |
| 12 |
/* |
| 13 |
Personally, I think lldb is pooh (bloated mess that has poor internal |
| 14 |
design, offers little or no logical features that can't be accomplished |
| 15 |
with source access+printf and takes a needlessly long time to compile as |
| 16 |
a result) |
| 17 |
*/ |
| 18 |
-------- |
| 19 |
If the only driving motivation is lldb then I think this isn't worth the |
| 20 |
effort and I wonder what may be incompatible as a result. Long term it |
| 21 |
certainly should happen - I can't/won't argue or disagree with the long |
| 22 |
term merits, but when.. and who will do all that work.. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Just a heads up that clang/llvm will (have in svn trunk) force building |
| 25 |
with c++11 for the next major release (6 months from now). So unless |
| 26 |
some 3rd party goes and backports or removes the c++11 pieces - this |
| 27 |
will add to the list of c++11 only software in the near future. |
Archives