similar to: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers

On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Renato Golin <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

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:12 AM, Renato Golin <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

On Oct 27, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >>> One short term caveat: Windows is special. > > s/Windows/Visual Studio. > > MinGW has the latest and greatest gcc. > >> I don't see how it is special. > > It is special, sadly, and I'm not talking about C++11

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 2013, at 12:07 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> >>>> One short term caveat: Windows is special. >> >> s/Windows/Visual Studio. >> >> MinGW has the latest and greatest gcc.

On Oct 31, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > You'll note that I replied directly to Ted's post asking whether the timeframe would be reasonable or what would be reasonable, and will naturally be waiting to hear back from him before anything happens. =] After some internal investigation and discussion, dropping support for VS 2010 no

>> 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

(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

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). >

On 10/28/13 11:45 AM, Dix Lorenz wrote: > On 27.10.2013, at 20:07, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: >> >>>> One short term caveat: Windows is special. >> s/Windows/Visual Studio. >> >> MinGW has the latest and greatest gcc. >> >>> I don't see how it is special.

On 27.10.2013, at 20:07, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >>> One short term caveat: Windows is special. > > s/Windows/Visual Studio. > > MinGW has the latest and greatest gcc. > >> I don't see how it is special. > > It is special, sadly, and I'm not talking about C++11

pls read the page of http://llvm.org/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

>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 Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976 at hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 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

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>

On Oct 27, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Now for the carrot: if we go with this plan, then immediately after >>>>> branching for 3.4, we would be able to use the vast majority of >>>>> C++11 features, targeting the following as the oldest toolchains >>>>> supported

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Douglas Gregor<dgregor at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Xerxes Rånby wrote: > >> Greetings >> >> Im interested to setup an automated buildbod that can test the cmake >> buildsysten. >> I use cmake for ARM cross compilation so I would be interested if >> someone are running a cmake bot and if

Recently I downloaded MSVC++2005 Express Edition and it turns out that it wasn't possible to compile all files without several changes: 1) FLAC.sln has one extra "EndProject" line --- a\FLAC.sln 2013-06-17 11:57:09.000000000 +0400 +++ b\FLAC.sln 2013-08-16 20:19:34.630486700 +0400 @@ -157,7 +157,6 @@ EndProject Project("{4cefbc7c-c215-11db-8314-0800200c9a66}") =

On Aug 31, 2009, at 1:19 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > 2009/8/31 Axel Naumann <Axel.Naumann at cern.ch>: >> we want to implement a C++ interpreter using LLVM and clang > > Isn't clang going on that direction anyway? Clang is meant to be flexible enough to be used as the basis for a C++ interpreter. However, there will probably be a bit of work to do in Clang to make

Why is this thread still going? Isn't the most pragmatic choice to just make it a build configuration option and be done? Then whoever is actually packaging it can make the most sensible choice for their needs.. Should I send a patch so this bikeshed thread can die?