llvm dev - Sep 2016 - [cfe-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to support two versions of MSVC

As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons.

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:
> Hi Reid, first off thanks *very* much for all your help fixing
> 2013-related problems.  We really appreciate it.
>
>
>
> Let me propose a target date of September 15 for advancing the minimum MS
> compiler to VS2015 Update 3.  Certainly my team should be ready by then. If
> anybody else needs a later date, in particular people who own Windows bots
> still using VS2013, please speak up.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:07 PM
> *To:* Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* James Molloy; Nico Weber; llvm-dev; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to
> support two versions of MSVC
>
>
>
> I'd like to revisit this. As a person who spends a fair amount of time
> monitoring our VS 2013 buildbots, I would say that I am ready to throw in
> the towel on MSVC 2013. Since this discussion, I have committed five (!)
> workarounds for MSVC 2013:
>
>
>
> # in llvm
>
> $ git log --author=rnk --grep=2013  --after='Aug 4 2016' --oneline
>
> 21a8ade Fix the MSVC 2013 build by using Elf_Word instead of making a
> local typedef
>
> 27e101d Revert "Add an optional parameter with a list of undefs to
> extendToIndices"
>
> e8beddd Make vec_fabs.ll pass with MSVC 2013
>
> ca77873 [AMDGPU] Give enum an explicit 64-bit type to fix MSVC 2013
> failures
>
>
>
> # in clang
>
> $ git log --author=rnk --grep=2013  --after='Aug 4 2016' --oneline
>
> 18235a5 Try to work around an MSVC 2013 bug around defaulted default ctors
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm missing instances where I helped others commit
> workarounds as well. So, I'd really like to drop 2013, probably
sometime
> next month.
>
>
>
> That said, I'd also like to echo Paul's sentiment that it'd
help if people
> were less adventurous in their uses of C++11. New language features may
> look nice, but ultimately you may end up wasting my time and yours when I
> come and revert your change.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I've heard from another group within Sony that they had "a number
of
> problems" with VS2015 update 2, and strongly recommend going straight
to
> update 3.  My immediate team has initiated a request but it hasn't gone
> through yet.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* James Molloy [mailto:james at jamesmolloy.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 03, 2016 1:54 AM
> *To:* Nico Weber; Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* llvm-dev; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to
> support two versions of MSVC
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This sounds like a decent idea to me. However we use 2013 for all our
> windows builds at the moment and it will take around 2 weeks to upgrade the
> installations on our cluster. We're pushing this hard to get it done
soon
> so we don't get caught short, but a grace period would be much
appreciated.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 21:24 Nico Weber via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> For my project, timing is everything.  We (and I could easily imagine,
>
> for many downstream projects) lead time is important.
>
>
>
> In Chromium land, we've so far been able to use the same compiler we
use
> to build Chrome to build clang. Currently that's MSVS2015 update 2, and
it
> took quite a while to update from 2013 to 2015 due bugs in 2015 and
> whatnot. So I agree that it's useful to support older MSVS versions for
> some time. For this reason, requiring update 3 would be inconvenient for
> us, but 2015u2 would be no problem by now. It would've been a problem
if
> 2015 had been required shortly after it was released.
>
>
>
> Nico
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160901/ec6595d2/attachment.html>

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons.
Do you mind elaborating on those reasons? I think we should require
the latest updates to MSVC due to the number of issues the updates fix
(esp regarding the newer language features that people keep using so
frequently), but I've also not heard a concrete use case as to why we
shouldn't.

~Aaron
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Reid, first off thanks *very* much for all your help fixing
>> 2013-related problems.  We really appreciate it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me propose a target date of September 15 for advancing the minimum
MS
>> compiler to VS2015 Update 3.  Certainly my team should be ready by
then. If
>> anybody else needs a later date, in particular people who own Windows
bots
>> still using VS2013, please speak up.
>>
>> --paulr
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:07 PM
>> To: Robinson, Paul
>> Cc: James Molloy; Nico Weber; llvm-dev; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to
>> support two versions of MSVC
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd like to revisit this. As a person who spends a fair amount of
time
>> monitoring our VS 2013 buildbots, I would say that I am ready to throw
in
>> the towel on MSVC 2013. Since this discussion, I have committed five
(!)
>> workarounds for MSVC 2013:
>>
>>
>>
>> # in llvm
>>
>> $ git log --author=rnk --grep=2013  --after='Aug 4 2016'
--oneline
>>
>> 21a8ade Fix the MSVC 2013 build by using Elf_Word instead of making a
>> local typedef
>>
>> 27e101d Revert "Add an optional parameter with a list of undefs to
>> extendToIndices"
>>
>> e8beddd Make vec_fabs.ll pass with MSVC 2013
>>
>> ca77873 [AMDGPU] Give enum an explicit 64-bit type to fix MSVC 2013
>> failures
>>
>>
>>
>> # in clang
>>
>> $ git log --author=rnk --grep=2013  --after='Aug 4 2016'
--oneline
>>
>> 18235a5 Try to work around an MSVC 2013 bug around defaulted default
ctors
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure I'm missing instances where I helped others
commit
>> workarounds as well. So, I'd really like to drop 2013, probably
sometime
>> next month.
>>
>>
>>
>> That said, I'd also like to echo Paul's sentiment that it'd
help if people
>> were less adventurous in their uses of C++11. New language features may
look
>> nice, but ultimately you may end up wasting my time and yours when I
come
>> and revert your change.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've heard from another group within Sony that they had "a
number of
>> problems" with VS2015 update 2, and strongly recommend going
straight to
>> update 3.  My immediate team has initiated a request but it hasn't
gone
>> through yet.
>>
>> --paulr
>>
>>
>>
>> From: James Molloy [mailto:james at jamesmolloy.co.uk]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 1:54 AM
>> To: Nico Weber; Robinson, Paul
>> Cc: llvm-dev; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to
>> support two versions of MSVC
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> This sounds like a decent idea to me. However we use 2013 for all our
>> windows builds at the moment and it will take around 2 weeks to upgrade
the
>> installations on our cluster. We're pushing this hard to get it
done soon so
>> we don't get caught short, but a grace period would be much
appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 21:24 Nico Weber via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> For my project, timing is everything.  We (and I could easily imagine,
>>
>> for many downstream projects) lead time is important.
>>
>>
>>
>> In Chromium land, we've so far been able to use the same compiler
we use
>> to build Chrome to build clang. Currently that's MSVS2015 update 2,
and it
>> took quite a while to update from 2013 to 2015 due bugs in 2015 and
whatnot.
>> So I agree that it's useful to support older MSVS versions for some
time.
>> For this reason, requiring update 3 would be inconvenient for us, but
2015u2
>> would be no problem by now. It would've been a problem if 2015 had
been
>> required shortly after it was released.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nico
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various
reasons.
>
> Do you mind elaborating on those reasons?

Off the top of my head, clang-cl couldn't handle the code generated by the
midl compiler in that version until fairly recently, and we've been seeing
link.exe /INCREMENTAL failing intermittently (no reliable repro case
though).

> I think we should require
> the latest updates to MSVC due to the number of issues the updates fix
> (esp regarding the newer language features that people keep using so
> frequently), but I've also not heard a concrete use case as to why we
> shouldn't.
>
Do you mean "require latest updates" in general, or just in this case?
Updating immediately every time a new MSVS release comes out would
definitely be tricky for us.

>
> ~Aaron
>
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at
sony.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Reid, first off thanks *very* much for all your help fixing
> >> 2013-related problems.  We really appreciate it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Let me propose a target date of September 15 for advancing the
minimum
> MS
> >> compiler to VS2015 Update 3.  Certainly my team should be ready by
> then. If
> >> anybody else needs a later date, in particular people who own
Windows
> bots
> >> still using VS2013, please speak up.
> >>
> >> --paulr
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:07 PM
> >> To: Robinson, Paul
> >> Cc: James Molloy; Nico Weber; llvm-dev; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Revisiting our informal policy
to
> >> support two versions of MSVC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to revisit this. As a person who spends a fair amount
of time
> >> monitoring our VS 2013 buildbots, I would say that I am ready to
throw
> in
> >> the towel on MSVC 2013. Since this discussion, I have committed
five (!)
> >> workarounds for MSVC 2013:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> # in llvm
> >>
> >> $ git log --author=rnk --grep=2013  --after='Aug 4 2016'
--oneline
> >>
> >> 21a8ade Fix the MSVC 2013 build by using Elf_Word instead of
making a
> >> local typedef
> >>
> >> 27e101d Revert "Add an optional parameter with a list of
undefs to
> >> extendToIndices"
> >>
> >> e8beddd Make vec_fabs.ll pass with MSVC 2013
> >>
> >> ca77873 [AMDGPU] Give enum an explicit 64-bit type to fix MSVC
2013
> >> failures
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> # in clang
> >>
> >> $ git log --author=rnk --grep=2013  --after='Aug 4 2016'
--oneline
> >>
> >> 18235a5 Try to work around an MSVC 2013 bug around defaulted
default
> ctors
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure I'm missing instances where I helped
others commit
> >> workarounds as well. So, I'd really like to drop 2013,
probably sometime
> >> next month.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That said, I'd also like to echo Paul's sentiment that
it'd help if
> people
> >> were less adventurous in their uses of C++11. New language
features may
> look
> >> nice, but ultimately you may end up wasting my time and yours when
I
> come
> >> and revert your change.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
> >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've heard from another group within Sony that they had
"a number of
> >> problems" with VS2015 update 2, and strongly recommend going
straight to
> >> update 3.  My immediate team has initiated a request but it
hasn't gone
> >> through yet.
> >>
> >> --paulr
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: James Molloy [mailto:james at jamesmolloy.co.uk]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 1:54 AM
> >> To: Nico Weber; Robinson, Paul
> >> Cc: llvm-dev; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Revisiting our informal policy
to
> >> support two versions of MSVC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This sounds like a decent idea to me. However we use 2013 for all
our
> >> windows builds at the moment and it will take around 2 weeks to
upgrade
> the
> >> installations on our cluster. We're pushing this hard to get
it done
> soon so
> >> we don't get caught short, but a grace period would be much
appreciated.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 21:24 Nico Weber via cfe-dev
> >> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev
> >> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> For my project, timing is everything.  We (and I could easily
imagine,
> >>
> >> for many downstream projects) lead time is important.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In Chromium land, we've so far been able to use the same
compiler we use
> >> to build Chrome to build clang. Currently that's MSVS2015
update 2, and
> it
> >> took quite a while to update from 2013 to 2015 due bugs in 2015
and
> whatnot.
> >> So I agree that it's useful to support older MSVS versions for
some
> time.
> >> For this reason, requiring update 3 would be inconvenient for us,
but
> 2015u2
> >> would be no problem by now. It would've been a problem if 2015
had been
> >> required shortly after it was released.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nico
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cfe-dev mailing list
> >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LLVM Developers mailing list
> >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160901/b452ef95/attachment.html>