<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Officially, the latest two major versions- so MSVC 2012 and 2013.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The
main issue I'd see here is that all of those features are relatively
untested- for example, in VS 14 CTP3 they had to introduce a new error
to explicitly break all the cases where the compiler silently did
totally the wrong thing. The ones that were included in VS2012 CTP are
not quite as bad. But the reality of using VS2013 is not that all of
these features will suddenly be available to use- there's a lot of
compiler issues that would need to be worked around, including some
silently-generates-totally-the-wrong-code bugs. They can also report totally incorrect errors- e.g. reporting errors that have nothing to do with the real error, in totally the wrong location, or both.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
Seeing
the feature list seems compelling, but MSVC's actual support is often
still below the standard you can find in GCC or Clang, even in
officially supported features. There's a price to be paid not just in
terms of breaking users who are still VS2012-dependent, but also in terms of debugging VS2013-only bugs.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Personally, I think that it's worth upping the minimum requirement whenever you're not breaking a substantial portion of your userbase. All I'm saying is, the experience of many of us using VS2013 is that that feature list is a little ... optimistic. Upgrading on that basis alone may well yield undesirable results.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Perhaps it would be better to consider a fork, where the new features are employed, and then if it doesn't introduce new bugs, it could be merged. This would also give more time for people to report in with a VS2012 dependency.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 22 August 2014 17:58, Chris Bieneman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beanz@apple.com" target="_blank">beanz@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="h5"><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 22, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Daniel Dilts <<a href="mailto:diltsman@gmail.com" target="_blank">diltsman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Chris Bieneman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beanz@apple.com" target="_blank">beanz@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)"><div>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.<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Is there an existing policy on how supported compiler versions are selected? </div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div><div>There was a discussion last year (<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-October/066847.html" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-October/066847.html</a>)
WRT allowing LLVM to use C++11 features which established a precedent
of supporting compilers released back for two years, with a special
caveat for Windows.</div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div></font></span></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>