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

Thu Sep 1 11:16:39 PDT 2016

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-dev
>> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons.
>>
>> Do you mind elaborating on those reasons?
>
>
> Off the top of my head, clang-cl couldn't handle the code generated by the
> midl compiler in that version until fairly recently, and we've been seeing
> link.exe /INCREMENTAL failing intermittently (no reliable repro case
> though).

Thank you for the extra information.

>
>>
>> I think we should require
>> the latest updates to MSVC due to the number of issues the updates fix
>> (esp regarding the newer language features that people keep using so
>> frequently), but I've also not heard a concrete use case as to why we
>> shouldn't.
>
>
> Do you mean "require latest updates" in general, or just in this case?
> Updating immediately every time a new MSVS release comes out would
> definitely be tricky for us.

I mean in general, but "immediate" wasn't what I had in mind. More
like "within some reasonable time frame", for whatever definition of
reasonable works for people. Given how often Microsoft fixes critical
language bugs with newer features during an Update release, I'm hoping
we can avoid sticking to older Updates if we are able to do so.

~Aaron

>
>>
>>
>> ~Aaron
>>
>> >
>> > 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>> >
>
>