[LLVMdev] diffs for vc7.1
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