search for: vs2012

Hi, I have tagged 3.6.2-final, so testers can start building and uploading -final binaries. There was only one change between 3.6.2-rc1 and 3.6.2-final, which was a patch to the R600 backend to fix the build with VS2012. Running a full regression suite is probably not necessary, but you still can if you want to be extra careful. -Tom

...rg/builds/ : To use the LLVM toolchain from Visual Studio, select a project in Solution Explorer, open its Property Page (Alt+F7 by default), and in the "General" section of "Configuration Properties" change "Platform Toolset" to "LLVM-vs2010" or "LLVM-vs2012". Alternatively, invoke MSBuild with /p:PlatformToolset=LLVM-vs2012 to try out the toolchain without modifying the project files. At 2013-11-29 00:00:08,"Kelly Sommers" <kell.sommers at gmail.com> wrote: From this website: http://llvm.org/builds/ I've installed the...

>From this website: http://llvm.org/builds/ I've installed the LLVM toolchain on 2 Windows machines. One with Visual Studio 2012 and another with Visual Studio 2013. After installing the LLVM toolchain neither machine shows the LLVM option in the Visual Studio project properties pane where you can select which toolchain to use for the project. Am I missing a step somewhere? :) Thanks for

On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on > building top-of-tree Clang with VS2010. We’re currently investigating how > quickly we can move those to VS2012 or newer. > Hi Doug, Good to know. Since this is mostly related to 3.5, we still have half-a-year to make sure it won't break big things. This whole discussion, in my view, was more to put the thought into our heads, so that we can plan ahead for deprecating old compilers and add language...

I've found that interception_win.cc line 835: "msvcr110.dll" //VS2012 "msvcr120.dll" //VS2013 interception is supported by commit 916b81 3 years ago , currently I'm build project with msvc100 , application will crash in un-intercepted free. adding msvcr100.dll to this list makes sanitizer working correctly , I wonder if compiler rt can including this m...

...ions of MSVC less than 2012? Not so much "Does it work?", but more like "Should any thought be given to whether or not something will break it?" Right now there are a bunch of warnings when compiling LLDB on Windows because it uses various symbols which have been defined since VS2012, but which are re-defined in llvm support header files. In the process of addressing this, I noticed in include\llvm\Support\DataTypes.h.in that it redefines a bunch of other stuff as well from stdint.h and inttypes.h with a comment about how these definitions were only added in certain updates to...

...at 12:04 PM, Gao, Yunzhong <yunzhong_gao at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > Hi, > Sorry for the delay in responding, we have been discussing this internally > and have not had time to do a proper investigation. > >> We absolutely have to ship a set of DLLs that run hosted in VS2012. Is >> there any sort of runtime incompatibility that would happen if we >> built with 2013, needed the 2013 CRT, but tried to run inside the >> VS2012 process? That would be a complete show stopper for us since we >> have a committed schedule for support of versions of VS t...

>> It is special, sadly, and I'm not talking about C++11 support only, but >> about the policies MS follows which too often makes very inconvenient >> (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example >> that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP >> support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your >> users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a >> service pack some months later, but that not always happens. > > I might be mistaken, but to compil...

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 22 August 2014 13:43, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: >> My opposition to this switch was the timing. When we researched "what >> minimum can we live with for C++11" nine months ago, we determined >> what versions would make sense, which included MSVC

...d it seems to be a worthwhile update. > On my own machine, the time for a full rebuild from clean of ALL_BUILD (LLVM > & Clang, Release + asserts + debug info, not using ninja) has improved by > 20%. Doing a like-for-like build of various benchmarks and games using > clang built by VS2012 and VS2013, the clang build speed of a typical -O2 -g > build is somewhere between in the noise and 1% faster with VS2013. We've > not yet observed any regressions in the speed of clang since upgrading. Great, thank you for the feedback! ~Aaron

...renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 31 October 2013 09:41, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > Not quite :). At present, we (= Apple) still have some dependencies on building top-of-tree Clang with VS2010. We’re currently investigating how quickly we can move those to VS2012 or newer. > > Hi Doug, > > Good to know. Since this is mostly related to 3.5, we still have half-a-year to make sure it won't break big things. > Yeah. I’d like to hear about regarding Chrome’s dependencies as well; we don’t want to break them. > This whole discussion, in...

> On Aug 22, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Daniel Dilts <diltsman at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com <mailto:beanz at apple.com>> wrote: > Starting a new thread to loop in cfe-dev and lldb-dev. For those not following along there has been a thread on llvm-dev about moving the minimum required Visual Studio version to

On Jan 9, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >> Wow, requiring GCC 4.7 would be really aggressive, it was just >> released in March 2012. Call me conservative, but I was thinking that >> a reasonable GCC baseline would be GCC 4.4 or something (which is ~3.5 >> years old). >

...t;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.

...ecial. >> It is special, sadly, and I'm not talking about C++11 support only, but >> about the policies MS follows which too often makes very inconvenient >> (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example >> that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP >> support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your >> users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a >> service pack some months later, but that not always happens. > I might be mistaken, but to compile for...

...w it is special. > > It is special, sadly, and I'm not talking about C++11 support only, but > about the policies MS follows which too often makes very inconvenient > (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example > that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP > support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your > users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a > service pack some months later, but that not always happens. I might be mistaken, but to compile for WinXP on VS 201...

On 09-03-13 01:01, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > I would like to know how many years I have to wait before we can ditch > this stuff. I intend to do some testing on platforms I have available > today and roll a second pre-release after my testing. Talking about ditching, there are still .dsp files in the repository, these are MSVC 6 files. I haven't seen anyone on the list testing

"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>

(re-sending to the actual mailing lists... go go gadget typos!) On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > Greetings, > > This has been discussed many times, and there are a lot of pro's and con's > on each side, but increasingly I think the project needs to draw a line in > the sand and put in place long-term policies around

...It is special, sadly, and I'm not talking about C++11 support only, but > >> about the policies MS follows which too often makes very inconvenient > >> (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example > >> that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP > >> support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your > >> users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a > >> service pack some months later, but that not always happens. > > > > I might b...