llvm dev - Jan 2013 - [LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself

"Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case.  I think MSVC 2010 is a
reasonable requirement, but it seems like 2012 is the real target for C++11
features."

Bah, they can install Mingw binaries.

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/eb78b89f/attachment.html>

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Daniels, Marcus G <mdaniels at
lanl.gov>wrote:
>
>    "Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case.  I think MSVC 2010
is
> a reasonable requirement, but it seems like 2012 is the real target for
> C++11 features."
>
> Bah, they can install Mingw binaries.
>
But what if they need to link with MSVC-generated binaries, or they want to
use LLVM in a Metro app?  (Now I'm just playing devil's advocate! :))

>
> Marcus
>


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/2c808e3c/attachment.html>

"Daniels, Marcus G" <mdaniels at lanl.gov> writes:
>> "Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case. I think MSVC 2010
is
>> a reasonable requirement, but it seems like 2012 is the real target
>> for C++11 features."
IMO, the only meaty C++11 feature that VS2012 adds over VS2010 is
range-based for-loops.
> Bah, they can install Mingw binaries.
Sure! Actually, I wonder why people care about Visual Studio at all.

Not.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:
> "Daniels, Marcus G" <mdaniels at lanl.gov> writes:
>
> >> "Unfortunately, that does appear to be the case. I think MSVC
2010 is
> >> a reasonable requirement, but it seems like 2012 is the real
target
> >> for C++11 features."
>
> IMO, the only meaty C++11 feature that VS2012 adds over VS2010 is
> range-based for-loops.
>
The Nov '12 (maybe?) tech preview for new features is nice, but it's
certainly not a usable baseline.

>
> > Bah, they can install Mingw binaries.
>
> Sure! Actually, I wonder why people care about Visual Studio at all.
>
> Not.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130110/b4b61471/attachment.html>

>> Bah, they can install Mingw binaries.
> Sure! Actually, I wonder why people care about Visual Studio at all.
Basic MSVC linkage should work with Mingw.  Anything that doesn't work is
probably something that ultimately needs to be understood on the clang/llvm side
for the sake of clean integration.  IMO, a compatible & mature open source
Windows toolchain like Mingw that mostly works is a better apparatus for
understanding and fixing real technical integration problems (in LLVM and clang)
than a proprietary compiler.

Anyway, I thought the question here amounted to how to ensure that people can
make binaries of LLVM libraries and a working clang executable on Windows. 
Mingw can do that.  Or some enterprising person can just distribute a binary
distribution like has been done for years with Mingw.

Whether LLVM and clang can perfectly target Windows is a separate issue that
making LLVM & clang source code friendly to Visual Studio can't really
help with anyway.

Marcus