llvm dev - Aug 2014 - [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising minimum required Visual Studio version to 2013 for trunk

For my money: variadic templates and some bug I hit when trying to use
forward_as_tuple.
On Aug 18, 2014 4:02 PM, "Aaron Ballman" <aaron at
aaronballman.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>
wrote:
> > I’d like to propose raising the minimum required compiler for the LLVM
&
> Clang trunks for Visual Studio to MSVC 2013.
> >
> > Doing this will allow us to take advantage of a bunch of C++11
features
> that are not supported by MSVC 2012. According to MSDN (
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh567368.aspx) the list is:
> >
> > * Non-static data member initializers
> > * Variadic templates
> > * Initializer lists
> > * Default template arguments for function templates
> > * Expression SFINAE
> > * Alias templates
> > * Delegating constructors
> > * Explicit conversion operators
> > * Raw string literals
> > * Defaulted and deleted functions
> >
> > Questions, comments, concerns, general feedback?
>
> We shifted the minimum MSVC version to 2012 in January of this year,
> and have run into only a few issues where C++11 features exist in MSVC
> 2013 but not MSVC 2012. So I'm wondering what problem this solves in
> practice for our code base?
>
> Personally, I use MSVC 2013 instead of 2012. But I would hesitate to
> switch to 2013 as the minimum supported version just yet. It's been
> out for less than two years and until "14" drops, it is the
newest
> version of the compiler. When we made the switch, the goal was to
> support only the last two versions of MSVC, and I don't see any strong
> evidence to support expediting that schedule. I think this is a great
> plan for when "14" is officially released.
>
> ~Aaron
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140818/5f297034/attachment.html>

I just broke a build by committing initializer list and a few other
C++11 stuff on the LoopVectorizer... :/

cheers,
--renato

PS: The lld Windows bot is 2011, so that surely needs upgrading anyway...

On 19 August 2014 00:48, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
wrote:
> For my money: variadic templates and some bug I hit when trying to use
> forward_as_tuple.
>
> On Aug 18, 2014 4:02 PM, "Aaron Ballman" <aaron at
aaronballman.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at
apple.com> wrote:
>> > I’d like to propose raising the minimum required compiler for the
LLVM &
>> > Clang trunks for Visual Studio to MSVC 2013.
>> >
>> > Doing this will allow us to take advantage of a bunch of C++11
features
>> > that are not supported by MSVC 2012. According to MSDN
>> > (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh567368.aspx) the list
is:
>> >
>> > * Non-static data member initializers
>> > * Variadic templates
>> > * Initializer lists
>> > * Default template arguments for function templates
>> > * Expression SFINAE
>> > * Alias templates
>> > * Delegating constructors
>> > * Explicit conversion operators
>> > * Raw string literals
>> > * Defaulted and deleted functions
>> >
>> > Questions, comments, concerns, general feedback?
>>
>> We shifted the minimum MSVC version to 2012 in January of this year,
>> and have run into only a few issues where C++11 features exist in MSVC
>> 2013 but not MSVC 2012. So I'm wondering what problem this solves
in
>> practice for our code base?
>>
>> Personally, I use MSVC 2013 instead of 2012. But I would hesitate to
>> switch to 2013 as the minimum supported version just yet. It's been
>> out for less than two years and until "14" drops, it is the
newest
>> version of the compiler. When we made the switch, the goal was to
>> support only the last two versions of MSVC, and I don't see any
strong
>> evidence to support expediting that schedule. I think this is a great
>> plan for when "14" is officially released.
>>
>> ~Aaron
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

+1 for 2013. The feature set is worth it.

I expect that there will still be major incompatibilities around
initializer lists, so I would avoid them unless you have MSVC or are OK
with diagnosing the problem from a buildbot.


On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at
linaro.org>
wrote:
> I just broke a build by committing initializer list and a few other
> C++11 stuff on the LoopVectorizer... :/
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
> PS: The lld Windows bot is 2011, so that surely needs upgrading anyway...
>
> On 19 August 2014 00:48, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For my money: variadic templates and some bug I hit when trying to use
> > forward_as_tuple.
> >
> > On Aug 18, 2014 4:02 PM, "Aaron Ballman" <aaron at
aaronballman.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at
apple.com>
> wrote:
> >> > I’d like to propose raising the minimum required compiler for
the
> LLVM &
> >> > Clang trunks for Visual Studio to MSVC 2013.
> >> >
> >> > Doing this will allow us to take advantage of a bunch of
C++11
> features
> >> > that are not supported by MSVC 2012. According to MSDN
> >> > (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh567368.aspx) the
list is:
> >> >
> >> > * Non-static data member initializers
> >> > * Variadic templates
> >> > * Initializer lists
> >> > * Default template arguments for function templates
> >> > * Expression SFINAE
> >> > * Alias templates
> >> > * Delegating constructors
> >> > * Explicit conversion operators
> >> > * Raw string literals
> >> > * Defaulted and deleted functions
> >> >
> >> > Questions, comments, concerns, general feedback?
> >>
> >> We shifted the minimum MSVC version to 2012 in January of this
year,
> >> and have run into only a few issues where C++11 features exist in
MSVC
> >> 2013 but not MSVC 2012. So I'm wondering what problem this
solves in
> >> practice for our code base?
> >>
> >> Personally, I use MSVC 2013 instead of 2012. But I would hesitate
to
> >> switch to 2013 as the minimum supported version just yet. It's
been
> >> out for less than two years and until "14" drops, it is
the newest
> >> version of the compiler. When we made the switch, the goal was to
> >> support only the last two versions of MSVC, and I don't see
any strong
> >> evidence to support expediting that schedule. I think this is a
great
> >> plan for when "14" is officially released.
> >>
> >> ~Aaron
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140821/068b0935/attachment.html>