llvm dev - Nov 2013 - [LLVMdev] C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers

> Not everyone thinks that such a thing would be bonware [1].
> Regards,
> Nate
> [1] http://en.windows7sins.org/
Probably shouldn't feed this any more, but..

I work primarily with Visual Studio and LLVM myself and have absolutely no  
objection to dropping VS2010. In fact, I stronly support such a move, as  
the VC++ compiler has improved quite a bit recently, especially in the  
context of the topical C++11 discussion. I don't want to assert anything  
strongly as I'm more of a LLVM consumer than contributor at this stage - I  
just want to provide some counterbalance to the XP support argument.

I can see why someone would not want to buy Windows 7. What baffles me is  
why sticking with WinXP (outdated, EOL operating system which is  
proprietary and will never be patched after april 2014) would resolve  
*any* problems whatsoever.

Any objections to perceived MS abuses would be better served by using any  
of the GPL or BSD operating systems or a competing proprietary OS. All of  
these choices can accomodate LLVM and Clang perfectly, and are arguably a  
more native habitat for them.

Best regards,
Vesa

"Vesa Norilo" <vnorilo at siba.fi> writes:

[snip]
> What baffles me is why sticking with WinXP (outdated, EOL operating
> system which is proprietary and will never be patched after april
> 2014) would resolve *any* problems whatsoever.
Now that you ask:

As there is a long number of XP systems out there (about 70% of my
software installations run on XP) some of us will be forced to support
that OS probably beyond 2016. Having the possibility of building on XP
simplifies software testing and packaging a bit.

I'm not using LLVM on production code and I'm looking forward to switch
to either MinGW-64 or VS2013 (when they fix the bugs) precisely because
C++11 support, so the change on LLVM doesn't impact me, but I wouldn't
be surprised if someone is not thrilled by the proposed change on LLVM.

[snip]