Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support clang++ from conda-forge #81

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Apr 23, 2024

Conversation

jjerphan
Copy link
Collaborator

Even-though conda-forge's toolchain allows for using clang++ 18, libc++ 16 is the latest version available (see conda-forge/libcxx-feedstock#131).

The std::lexicographical_compare_three_way has only been implemented in libc++ 17, so we use the vendored implementation when libc++ < 17 is used.

@jjerphan jjerphan marked this pull request as ready for review April 22, 2024 14:15
@jjerphan jjerphan changed the title Backport implementation when libc++<17 is used Use clang++ and backport implementation when libc++<17 is used Apr 22, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@JohanMabille JohanMabille left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We discussed dropping support for Apple Clang, is it still relevant? If so, we should probably remove the corresponding macro; otherwise, we should have an additional parameter in the matrix build to test bothe Apple Clang and clang 17.

Signed-off-by: Julien Jerphanion <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Johan Mabille <[email protected]>
@jjerphan jjerphan changed the title Use clang++ and backport implementation when libc++<17 is used Support clang++ from conda-forge Apr 23, 2024
Signed-off-by: Julien Jerphanion <[email protected]>
@JohanMabille JohanMabille merged commit 28056b8 into man-group:main Apr 23, 2024
23 checks passed
@jjerphan jjerphan deleted the libc++16-support branch April 23, 2024 07:21
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants