similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising minimum required Visual Studio version to 2013 for trunk

For my money: variadic templates and some bug I hit when trying to use forward_as_tuple. On Aug 18, 2014 4:02 PM, "Aaron Ballman" <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > > I’d like to propose raising the minimum required compiler for the LLVM & > Clang trunks for Visual Studio to MSVC

+1 for 2013. The feature set is worth it. I expect that there will still be major incompatibilities around initializer lists, so I would avoid them unless you have MSVC or are OK with diagnosing the problem from a buildbot. On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > I just broke a build by committing initializer list and a few other > C++11

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 2013. The motivating reason is this will allow us to take advantage of a bunch of C++11 features that are not supported by MSVC 2012. According to MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh567368.aspx) the list is:

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > This thread hasn’t had too much traffic, but it sounds like many people are > in favor and there is no strong opposition. If I understand Aaron’s only > objection was based on preserving existing policy rather than a technical > reason. > > Anyone want to make the official call? > > -Chris

> -----Original Message----- > From: cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Aaron Ballman > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 4:45 PM > To: Chris Bieneman > Cc: lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-dev Developers; LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising LLVM minimum required MSVC > version to 2013

> 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 Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: > +Alex Bradbury > > Sounds to me like we have no known users still on VS 2012. > > So, how about we plan to move forward again with Chandler’s proposal for making this transition. For those who don’t want to dig through to the beginning here’s the basic plan: > > 1) Loop in cfe-dev and

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 because the workaround is

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > This thread hasn’t had too much traffic, but it sounds like many people are > in favor and there is no strong opposition. If I understand Aaron’s only > objection was based on preserving existing policy rather than a technical > reason. > > Anyone want to make the official call? I am still

MSVC survives because there's no effective competition- it's like communications providers in the United States or political parties in China. The alternatives like GCC have no decent development environments for them, and Clang has the bonus of not being mature w.r.t. things like Standard libraries. The reality is, there's nowhere to go *but* MSVC. This stuff is the major reason why

My list of useful features in newer CMake versions, that I would like to see used: CMake 2.8.10 * INTERFACE_LIBRARY (we already use this by hacking around the CMake version) CMake 2.8.11 * Targets can now have dependencies that are arbitrary files instead of just link dependencies (http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Epics/CMake_target_usage_requirements

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). >

I’m not too familiar with Ubuntu’s LTS releases, but from some google digging I believe there are 3 active LTS releases. 10.04 has CMake 2.8.0 (which is already below our minimum), but 10.04 will be dropping out of LTS this year. 12.04 has CMake 2.8.7 (also below our minimum) 14.04 has CMake 2.8.12.2, which should also have the fix for MSVC Based on this, it might be reasonable to update the

Meant to send this yesterday, but I want to remind everyone that we’re going to be raising the CMake minimum version to 3.4.3 next week. If you maintain bots please ensure that your bots are updated by end of day 5/29 so that we can move on 5/30 (next Monday). I have already heard from most bot owners either saying they had made the change, or scheduled to make it. If you have any questions or

I am ready, regarding to, http://bb.pgr.jp/ On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:54 AM Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > Meant to send this yesterday, but I want to remind everyone that we’re > going to be raising the CMake minimum version to 3.4.3 next week. > > If you maintain bots please ensure that your bots are updated by end of > day 5/29 so that we can move on 5/30

It came up on another thread that our current minimum required CMake version 2.8.8, has some bugs that cause issues when building with MSVC + Ninja, and one potential solution was to raise the minimum required version of CMake. CMake 3.0 is now 6 months old and CMake 3.1 has been released. I would like to propose moving our minimum required CMake version to 3.0. I’ve attached patches to enforce

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> Good points David, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the differences >> between those versions though... Perhaps Richard or Doug could comment here? > > Unless I'm misreading the buildbots, we don't actually have anything > trying to build with MSVC. Have we considered how

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 24, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 24, 2015, at 8:45 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >>> >>> On 09.02.2015 20:12, Chris Bieneman wrote: >>>> It

All the MIPS buildbots are ready too. From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of NAKAMURA Takumi via llvm-dev Sent: 25 May 2016 23:03 To: Chris Bieneman; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [Attn: Bot Owners!] Raising CMake minimum version to 3.4.3 I am ready, regarding to, http://bb.pgr.jp/ On

Here is a table detailing C++11 features support for Visual C++ 2010, 2012, 2013 http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/hh567368.aspx Specifically, range-based for loops are supported in Visual C++ 2012, 2013 but not in 2010. Yaron 2013/10/28 David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >