search for: 2015u2

Anybody still has MSVC 2015 update 1? It seems that MSVC 2015U2 miscompiles stream_encoder_intrin_sse2.c, stream_encoder_intrin_ssse3.c (and probably stream_encoder_intrin_avx2.c, but currently I cannot test it 'cause I don't have avx2 CPU). I wonder what happened and what changed in the asm code that MSVC generates.

...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/c...

...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/mai...

-----Original Message----- > From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Aaron > Ballman via cfe-dev > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 12:06 PM > To: David Majnemer > Cc: llvm-dev; cfe-dev > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to > support two versions of MSVC > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:24 PM, David Majnemer via

...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/mai...

...te 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-...

...o 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 > >> >> > >&gt...

...;> 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. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> &g...

...ree 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. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >&g...