search for: vc2012

...ntly, we have people that are relying on our C++98 status. This isn't actually about VC2010 issues, this is about GCC support. I think it would be a disservice to change that in 3.4, only a small number of weeks away from the branch point. That seems like very little notice. > then jump to VC2012 features in LLVM 3.5 assuming that goes well. We're > talking about a 6 month delta between the two, and I think we'll learn a > lot in the first step. I think the biggest jump will be to have a floor at all, and I think we should just pick on that makes sense, and advertise the da...

...ally about VC2010 issues, this is about GCC support. I think it would be a disservice to change that in 3.4, only a small number of weeks away from the branch point. That seems like very little notice. Yes, good point. A more logical one would be to go for 3.5/3.6 for "VC2010" and "VC2012" feature adoption. > > then jump to VC2012 features in LLVM 3.5 assuming that goes well. We're talking about a 6 month delta between the two, and I think we'll learn a lot in the first step. > > I think the biggest jump will be to have a floor at all, and I think we sho...

...VC2010 issues, this is about GCC support. I think it would be a disservice to change that in 3.4, only a small number of weeks away from the branch point. That seems like very little notice. > > Yes, good point. A more logical one would be to go for 3.5/3.6 for "VC2010" and "VC2012" feature adoption. FWIW, I thought the agreement when this came up previously was that 3.4 could include C++11 features. Delaying one more might help FreeBSD a bit, but we've been planning as though 3.4 would break the ability to build on gcc 4.2. > > then jump to VC2012 features...

...e is risky. I suppose what I'm saying is that we are currently not using *any* C++'11 features. It seems like conservatively great progress for LLVM 3.4 to bump the minimum GCC requirement up to enable use of VC 2010-era features (like rvalue refs and simple stdlib features), then jump to VC2012 features in LLVM 3.5 assuming that goes well. We're talking about a 6 month delta between the two, and I think we'll learn a lot in the first step. This also helps stage out the inevitable "lets rewrite the codebase" churn over more time. -Chris -------------- next part ------...

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote:> Concrete long term proposal: > > > > We support building with C++ toolchains which were released and widely > available on their respective target platforms at least 2 years prior to > the next