similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising LLVM minimum required MSVC version to 2013 for trunk

> -----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

I’d like to propose raising the minimum required compiler for the LLVM & Clang trunks for Visual Studio to MSVC 2013. Doing 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: * Non-static data member initializers * Variadic templates * Initializer lists *

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

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

Hi, Recently one Windows build bot failed by my commit, because the obj file being generated is too big: C:\ps4-buildslave2\llvm-clang-x86_64-expensive-checks-win\llvm\tools\clang\unittests\AST\ASTImporterTest.cpp : fatal error C1128: number of sections exceeded object file format limit: compile with /bigobj Is there an LLVM policy to limit the maximum size of the generated obj files? If not

Hi, We are starting to test binaries generated by lld on windows and we notices that sometimes the visual studio debugger can't see the content of variables or gets the call stack wrong for deeply nested or complex types. Did anyone else have the same problems, or any way to try to figure out what is missing? I tried llvm-pdbutil dump -symbols but there is a lot of small diferences on

No, we use msvc cl.exe as a compiler generating C7 debug information (here is more or less our compiler options regarding optimization/debugability): /Z7 /GL- /bigobj /Zo /utf-8 /arch:AVX /std:c++14 /Zc:inline /Zc:ternary /Zc:rvalueCast /Zc:strictStrings /O2 /MD In this list the only weird one is /bigobj, my main fear is that we might get to the limit of sections on an obj and then by adding the

Hello, After switching from a Linux development host to Windows7 with Cygwin, I notice the following problem when building clang (trunk, HEAD): (also happens with Mingw) ... llvm[4]: Compiling ParseInit.cpp for Debug+Asserts build as: /cygdrive/d/Projects/Cpp/llvm/cfgCygwin/tools/clang/lib/AST/Debug+Asserts/ASTContext.o: too many sections (33066) /tmp/ccmtDH7w.s: Assembler messages:

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: >

> Here is a trivial reason why I have not propagated http://bb.pgr.jp/ . > Sometimes (but I suppose rarely) he reports false alarm in a few > points. He'd send blames to the llvm-testresults if his master (aka I) > knew he were mature. > > I don't also want him promoted and called as one of official > buildbots. He is my pet, though, I expect he should be helpful 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

On 5/2/2014 11:41 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > Any idea what all those sections are - comdat inline functions? > No idea, as I cannot run objdump -h on a object file that I couldn't build :) Anyhow, I have an old, successful Debug+Asserts build of clang, made with Mingw also, for clang revision 206070. Apparently, the ASTContext.o file there contained 16453 sections, not 33066, as

Here is a trivial reason why I have not propagated http://bb.pgr.jp/ . Sometimes (but I suppose rarely) he reports false alarm in a few points. He'd send blames to the llvm-testresults if his master (aka I) knew he were mature. I don't also want him promoted and called as one of official buildbots. He is my pet, though, I expect he should be helpful to the developers. ...Takumi

Hi Team, I have checked out the clang and llvm source code and built the executables using the visual studio 2015 community edition. I am using Windows as my platform. However I see that there are some test cases under the clang test folder in the LLVM.sln. Eg AstMatcherTest,ASTTests etc. I see that these tests make use of the Google test framework. In my visual studio I have

If we have no other major users who require VS 2012 support, I think it's reasonable to officially switch now. We might want to wait for 3.6 to go out the door, just to reduce possible issues with porting fixes, but that may be 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

Hi, I’d just like to interject to say that building within Visual Studio isn’t really that bad. Running the lit tests is a bit painful because the LLVM build tools that are integrated with the build system don’t play nice with msbuild. Particularly, I’ve never been able to actually cancel an invocation of lit or tablegen via visual studio. That said, there is a huge upside to building with

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Dix Lorenz <lists at dix-lorenz.de> writes: > > > I might be mistaken, but to compile for WinXP on VS 2012 you have to > > switch the Platform Toolset and AFAICT that means it will essentially > > be using the VS 2010 compiler and libraries. > > That was how VS 2012 worked at

+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 lldb-dev (Done!) 2) Wait until this email fully circulates in digests and LLVM Weekly so that everyone who has an objection

Hi, How far are we from having '-r' in the LLD COFF linker? I'd try to implement this if not too much effort is required. Any suggestions and/or pointers? Cheers, Kyra