[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to support two versions of MSVC

[Nico Weber via cfe-dev]

As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons.

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com>
wrote:

> Hi Reid, first off thanks *very* much for all your help fixing
> 2013-related problems.  We really appreciate it.
>
>
>
> Let me propose a target date of September 15 for advancing the minimum MS
> compiler to VS2015 Update 3.  Certainly my team should be ready by then. If
> anybody else needs a later date, in particular people who own Windows bots
> still using VS2013, please speak up.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:07 PM
> *To:* Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* James Molloy; Nico Weber; llvm-dev; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to
> support two versions of MSVC
>
>
>
> I'd like to revisit this. As a person who spends a fair amount of time
> monitoring our VS 2013 buildbots, I would say that I am ready to throw in
> the towel on MSVC 2013. Since this discussion, I have committed five (!)
> workarounds for MSVC 2013:
>
>
>
> # in llvm
>
> $ git log --author=rnk --grep=2013  --after='Aug 4 2016' --oneline
>
> 21a8ade Fix the MSVC 2013 build by using Elf_Word instead of making a
> local typedef
>
> 27e101d Revert "Add an optional parameter with a list of undefs to
> extendToIndices"
>
> e8beddd Make vec_fabs.ll pass with MSVC 2013
>
> ca77873 [AMDGPU] Give enum an explicit 64-bit type to fix MSVC 2013
> failures
>
>
>
> # in clang
>
> $ git log --author=rnk --grep=2013  --after='Aug 4 2016' --oneline
>
> 18235a5 Try to work around an MSVC 2013 bug around defaulted default ctors
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm missing instances where I helped others commit
> workarounds as well. So, I'd really like to drop 2013, probably sometime
> next month.
>
>
>
> That said, I'd also like to echo Paul's sentiment that it'd help if people
> were less adventurous in their uses of C++11. New language features may
> look nice, but ultimately you may end up wasting my time and yours when I
> come and revert your change.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I've heard from another group within Sony that they had "a number of
> problems" with VS2015 update 2, and strongly recommend going straight to
> update 3.  My immediate team has initiated a request but it hasn't gone
> through yet.
>
> --paulr
>
>
>
> *From:* James Molloy [mailto:james at jamesmolloy.co.uk]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 03, 2016 1:54 AM
> *To:* Nico Weber; Robinson, Paul
> *Cc:* llvm-dev; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to
> support two versions of MSVC
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This sounds like a decent idea to me. However we use 2013 for all our
> windows builds at the moment and it will take around 2 weeks to upgrade the
> installations on our cluster. We're pushing this hard to get it done soon
> so we don't get caught short, but a grace period would be much appreciated.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 21:24 Nico Weber via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> For my project, timing is everything.  We (and I could easily imagine,
>
> for many downstream projects) lead time is important.
>
>
>
> In Chromium land, we've so far been able to use the same compiler we use
> to build Chrome to build clang. Currently that's MSVS2015 update 2, and it
> took quite a while to update from 2013 to 2015 due bugs in 2015 and
> whatnot. So I agree that it's useful to support older MSVS versions for
> some time. For this reason, requiring update 3 would be inconvenient for
> us, but 2015u2 would be no problem by now. It would've been a problem if
> 2015 had been required shortly after it was released.
>
>
>
> Nico
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160901/ec6595d2/attachment.html>