[LLVMdev] diffs for vc7.1

Jeff Cohen jeffc at jolt-lang.org
Wed Sep 15 08:58:55 PDT 2004

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:39:23 -0700
Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:

> Yes, in fact I'd be daring enough to suggest that it be the standard.
> We'll have fewer compilation problems with VC++ 2005 because it is
> (supposedly) more standards compliant than previous versions. Please use
> this download:

While this may be true, it's not a realistic request.  Even among
commercial developers with MSDN subscriptions, it is common to delay
upgrading to the lastest VC++ for a year or two or even three.  I've
personally been involved with two such upgrades, from 5 to 6 and 6 to
7.1 and it's a pain.  The project files are not converted correctly.
Code that compiled before no longer does.  Code that does compile no
longer runs correctly.  You depend on some third-party library that
hasn't itself upgraded to the latest VC++ (still a problem with 7.1). 
And don't even think of doing this near the end of a release cycle for
your product.  The mere thought of using a /beta/ version of a Microsoft

And for those without an MSDN subscription, the cost of purchasing the
latest Visual Studio is enough disincentive.

If the LLVM code base doesn't want to compile with VC++ 6 because it's
not sufficiently ANSI compliant, that's a good enough reason to not
support it.  I know that template support wasn't very compliant with 6
(though still better than most non-g++ Unix compilers even today) and
LLVM uses templates a lot.  While 6 is still common, by now most are
switching to 7.1.  As it seems to work well enough with 7.1, I don't
think standardizing on an unreleased version that won't become dominant
for four years or so is constructive.  And that assumes it actually
ships in 2005 :)

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list