search for: vs2013

Hi, I have attached a small patch from r192263 that I am using to add LLVM into the toolchain for VS2013. Is someone able to review this and (if all good) submit to the source tree? Changes are all local to llvm/tools/msbuild/ and account for VS2013 requiring the files to be named toolset.props / .targets, rather than the longer name in the previous versions. Cheers, Joshua Samuel ******************...

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Josh Samuel <JSamuel at iress.com.au> wrote: > I have attached a small patch from r192263 that I am using to add LLVM into > the toolchain for VS2013. > > Is someone able to review this and (if all good) submit to the source tree? I don't have VS2013 to verify this with, but the patch looks good and since it works for you, I've committed it in r192371. Thanks, Hans

...happier with them) Cheers, Josh -----Original Message----- From: hwennborg at google.com [mailto:hwennborg at google.com] On Behalf Of Hans Wennborg Sent: Friday, 11 October 2013 4:38 AM To: Josh Samuel Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [MSVC] Adding LLVM build target support in VS2013 projects On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Josh Samuel <JSamuel at iress.com.au> wrote: > I have attached a small patch from r192263 that I am using to add LLVM > into the toolchain for VS2013. > > Is someone able to review this and (if all good) submit to the source tree? I don&...

...For example: 207> ******************** 207> FAIL: Clang :: CodeGen/2004-06-17-UnorderedCompares.c (1109 of 7263) 207> ******************** TEST 'Clang :: CodeGen/2004-06-17-UnorderedCompares.c' FAILED ******************** 207> Script: 207> -- 207> D:/src/llvm/build/vs2013/Debug/bin/clang.EXE -cc1 -internal-isystem D:\src\llvm\build\vs2013\Debug\bin\..\lib\clang\3.5.0\include -std=c99 D:\src\llvm\tools\clang\test\CodeGen\2004-06-17-UnorderedCompares.c -emit-llvm -o - | grep -v llvm.isunordered | D:/src/llvm/build/vs2013/Debug/bin\not.EXE grep call 207> -- 207&gt...

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Greg Bedwell <gregbedwell at gmail.com> wrote: > We've just encountered an issue with ninja and VS2013 when using versions of > CMake prior to 2.8.12.1. This isn't a combination that we typically use so > we've not run into it previously in our own builds. It isn't specifically > tied to upgrading the minimum version as it's a problem that already exists > but I figure...

...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

...a reason why we shouldn't. But if we find ourselves in a situation where asking folks to upgrade to a compiler which has been widely deployed soothes development for the greater LLVM community, we should consider dropping support for the older versions of that compiler. In this case, dropping VS2013 allows us to use more C++11 features with confidence. Notably, move constructors will be synthesized instead of having to be manually written (and kept in sync with data members getting added). What do you all think? Are folks still stuck on VS2013? Thanks, David -------------- next part ------...

...: Sean Silva; Robinson, Paul; Piotr Padlewski; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading to MSVC 2015 > > There are not that many people making commits to working around MSVC > 2013 as I think are claimed CGOpenMPRuntime.cpp had 4 patches this week trying to make VS2013 happy. I can tell they were because of VS2013 because the public PS4 bot has VS2015 and it didn't seem to have the same problems. Maybe it was just bad luck that we put up an internal VS2013 bot when it happened, but it has been an incredible time-sink for me this week. Note I do not want to a...

VS2013 support is dropped in about 1 week from now :) On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:37 PM Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian < Johannes.Sebastian.Mueller-Roemer at igd.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Visual Studio up to and including VS2013 implements > std::chrono::high_resolution_clock in an absolutel...

Currently, LLVM_HAS_INITIALIZER_LISTS is set based on __has_feature(cxx_generalized_initializers) && !defined(_MSC_VER) Based on the docs, we should be able to drop the _MSC_VER check now that we've moved to VS2013. Can somebody confirm that? The other problem is that GCC doesn't recognize __has_feature, so this is essentially only enabled for clang. If we're keeping this check it should really check the GCC version as well - they've had these for quite a while now.

...On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:00 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> There are certainly enough people making commits that work with VS2015 >> but not VS2013 that the "would it be useful" question is pretty well >> answered. I've already brought up the idea on my team, as it's obviously >> coming and we need time to coordinate with internal consumers of the >> toolchain. >> > > Also, we have an increasing...

...Paul; Piotr Padlewski; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading to MSVC 2015 >> >> There are not that many people making commits to working around MSVC >> 2013 as I think are claimed > > CGOpenMPRuntime.cpp had 4 patches this week trying to make VS2013 happy. > I can tell they were because of VS2013 because the public PS4 bot has > VS2015 and it didn't seem to have the same problems. Hmmm, I don't see any mention in the code itself about changes to appease MSVC 2013, so that's why it didn't come up in my searches. We usuall...

...ev at lists.llvm.org > >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Upgrading to MSVC 2015 > >> > >> There are not that many people making commits to working around MSVC > >> 2013 as I think are claimed > > > > CGOpenMPRuntime.cpp had 4 patches this week trying to make VS2013 happy. > > I can tell they were because of VS2013 because the public PS4 bot has > > VS2015 and it didn't seem to have the same problems. > > Hmmm, I don't see any mention in the code itself about changes to > appease MSVC 2013, so that's why it didn't come up...

...Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> There are certainly enough people making commits that work with VS2015 >>> but not VS2013 that the "would it be useful" question is pretty well >>> answered. I've already brought up the idea on my team, as it's obviously >>> coming and we need time to coordinate with internal consumers of the >>> toolchain. >> >> >> Also, w...

...e overly cautious. ~Aaron On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Greg Bedwell <gregbedwell at gmail.com> wrote: > This thread seems to have stalled again without resolution :). Is there > anything else left blocking this change? We've had our PS4 toolchain builds > switched over to VS2013 since I reported back in October without any issues. > > -Greg > > On 8 October 2014 at 18:35, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Greg Bedwell <gregbedwell at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >&g...

The bot has been failing its CMake step for a while now. Probably fallout from renaming Msf to MSF. Can somebody get this straightened out? It's one of the bots that run VS2013 AFAICT which makes it useful to me. Thanks, --paulr

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > There are certainly enough people making commits that work with VS2015 but > not VS2013 that the "would it be useful" question is pretty well answered. > I've already brought up the idea on my team, as it's obviously coming and > we need time to coordinate with internal consumers of the toolchain. > Also, we have an increasing number of parts of the codebas...

I have moved onto the next phase and committed r229185, which makes VS2013 our minimum version. I will revert if issues arise, and we can rinse and repeat as necessary. Once it sticks for a bit I’ll update the docs too. -Chris > On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > > I agree with Aaron, this should not be a blocker b...

Hi all, We're considering using std::chrono more heavily in lldb. However, A quick search of the llvm, clang, and lld codebases shos almost zero usage of chrono. I wanted to see if this was for technical reasons (eg some compiler doesn't support it well) or simply because nobody has needed it yet. If it's the former then I'd like to be aware of the issues so we don't fall into

I am attempting to build the RC1 drop of libspeex for Windows with the MSVC toolchain (VS2013) and MinGW, the following is my configure line: CC=cl.exe CFLAGS=-MD ./configure --enable-shared=no --prefix /builds/Windows81/x86 --host i686-pc-mingw32 During the configure process (specifically the "checking whether the C compiler works...") I get a Windows popup telling me that the...