llvm dev - Jul 2013 - [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Host compiler requirements: Dropping VS 2008, using C++11?

Hi all,

A few days ago, there was a report of LLVM not compiling on VS 2008,
because of asymmetric std::lower_bound comparators not supported
there.

As noted by a few people, maybe it's time to drop VS 2008
compatibility and move the requirements to VS 2010?

While there, what about going further and starting using C++11? Now
seems as good a time as ever; my takeaway from that few months old
discussion was that once 3.3 is released, it would be reasonable to
start using features supported by VS2010 / gcc-4.4 / clang-3.1. That
would be now, are there any objections left?

-- Ahmed

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > There is some historical precedence for fixing the problem with VS
> > lower_bound by changing the LLVM source - when I first got LLVM to
compile
> > with Visual Studio, patches for unsymmetric operator < were
accepted into
> > the LLVM repo, and I believe it's been done several times after
that as
> > well.
>
> In the C++11 discussion back in January
>
(http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Using-C-11-language-features-in-LLVM-itself-td53319.html)
> there seemed to be some kind of consensus for 2010 being a reasonable
> minimum. Perhaps this is a good time to break compatibility
> officially.
>
> Actually, whatever did happen to using C++11? No-one mentioned
> anything about it after that thread.
Valid points, raised in the commit thread. Changed the subject to get
people's attention!
>
> Tim.

I'm in favor of dropping VS 2008 support (in fact, I thought we had
already talked about doing that, but perhaps I am remembering
incorrectly).

I think C++11 support should be a separate discussion than dropping VS
2008 support because it's likely to be a bit more in-depth, but I'm in
favor of it.

~Aaron

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Ahmed Bougacha
<ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A few days ago, there was a report of LLVM not compiling on VS 2008,
> because of asymmetric std::lower_bound comparators not supported
> there.
>
> As noted by a few people, maybe it's time to drop VS 2008
> compatibility and move the requirements to VS 2010?
>
> While there, what about going further and starting using C++11? Now
> seems as good a time as ever; my takeaway from that few months old
> discussion was that once 3.3 is released, it would be reasonable to
> start using features supported by VS2010 / gcc-4.4 / clang-3.1. That
> would be now, are there any objections left?
>
> -- Ahmed
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at
gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > There is some historical precedence for fixing the problem with VS
>> > lower_bound by changing the LLVM source - when I first got LLVM to
compile
>> > with Visual Studio, patches for unsymmetric operator < were
accepted into
>> > the LLVM repo, and I believe it's been done several times
after that as
>> > well.
>>
>> In the C++11 discussion back in January
>>
(http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/Using-C-11-language-features-in-LLVM-itself-td53319.html)
>> there seemed to be some kind of consensus for 2010 being a reasonable
>> minimum. Perhaps this is a good time to break compatibility
>> officially.
>>
>> Actually, whatever did happen to using C++11? No-one mentioned
>> anything about it after that thread.
>
> Valid points, raised in the commit thread. Changed the subject to get
> people's attention!
>
>>
>> Tim.
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at
gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A few days ago, there was a report of LLVM not compiling on VS 2008,
> because of asymmetric std::lower_bound comparators not supported
> there.
>
> As noted by a few people, maybe it's time to drop VS 2008
> compatibility and move the requirements to VS 2010?
>
> While there, what about going further and starting using C++11? Now
> seems as good a time as ever; my takeaway from that few months old
> discussion was that once 3.3 is released, it would be reasonable to
> start using features supported by VS2010 / gcc-4.4 / clang-3.1. That
> would be now, are there any objections left?
>
> -- Ahmed
>
I'm also in favor of dropping VS 2008 if nobody has a strong need for it,
but C++11 is a different discussion.

Does anyone know if we have any contributors that rely on VS 2008?

- Michael Spencer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130708/c4785104/attachment.html>

On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at
aaronballman.com>wrote:
> I'm in favor of dropping VS 2008 support (in fact, I thought we had
> already talked about doing that, but perhaps I am remembering
> incorrectly).
>
+1 -- we're good with dropping VS 2008, especially if we document it
clearly in the release notes.

I think C++11 support should be a separate discussion than dropping
VS
> 2008 support because it's likely to be a bit more in-depth, but I'm
in
> favor of it.
>
+1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130708/2238adaa/attachment.html>