<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Richard Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk" target="_blank">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="im">On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Reid Kleckner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rnk@google.com" target="_blank">rnk@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Chrome still ships with VS2010. LLVM is only brought into Chrome via PNaCl, I think, but I don't think it's built with MSVC. Maybe JF could say more.<div><br></div><div>The initial release of 2012 had lots of miscompiles, most of which should've been fixed in update 1. I think the story was the same for 2013.<div>
<br></div><div>I'm not sure why Chrome hasn't moved up to 2012 now that bugs are fixed. My best guess would be that LTO memory usage increased, breaking the 32-bit official release build.</div><div><br></div><div>
It sounds like WebKit will link in LLVM soon, and they may still be on the same toolchain trajectory as Chrome.</div></div><div><br></div><div>As Doug mentioned, a lot of LLVM users live close to TOT, so moving to C++11 in two months is a much more immediate change for them than a release 8 months away.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Personally, I'd be happy to move, but it's not much trouble for me. :) The only thing I don't like about C++11 so far from reading lld is to see std::move slapped on every return value under the sun. =P</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Hmm. There's 23 matches for 'return std::move' in lld. Of those, 12 uses of std::move are redundant (and in fact harmful, since they're suppressing NRVO). 8 others will become redundant in C++14. The other 3 are performing some non-trivial ownership transfer.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I will remove those 12 redundant std::move()s. And yes, seems NRVO warning would have value. :)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I've been intending to add a warning to Clang for calls to std::move that suppress NRVO. Seems like it'd have value here. And then you'd have to read 'return std::move(...);' less =)</div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Douglas Gregor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dgregor@apple.com" target="_blank">dgregor@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><br><div><div>On Oct 31, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Renato Golin <<a href="mailto:renato.golin@linaro.org" target="_blank">renato.golin@linaro.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">On 31 October 2013 00:24, Eric Christopher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:echristo@gmail.com" target="_blank">echristo@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div>The timeframe “2 whole years” might seem like a long time to us, but not everybody lives in the world where they adopt new toolsets so quickly. That’s my concern about dropping VS 2010 support. So this is both a question about how fast Visual Studio moves, but also the people who use Visual Studio.<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">Agreed. I think the question here is whether or not it's reasonable for this change and less whether or not it's reasonable as a path for each release to then deprecate everything more than 2 years old. I'd like to get rid of VS2010 because I want the features of 2012 and few of the current people developing on windows have spoken up (and most of them positively), but you do quite a bit of work and maintenance with windows so your thoughts are definitely important here. Do you think it's reasonable?</div>
</div></blockquote><div></div></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">You guys are still taking it too literally... ;)</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Let's take one decision at a time. We seem not to have any reason to keep VS2010 support. Check box.</div>
</div></blockquote><br></div></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>- Doug</div><div><br></div><br></div><br></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
cfe-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
cfe-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu" target="_blank">cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
cfe-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu">cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>