[LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising minimum required Visual Studio version to 2013 for trunk

[Zachary Turner]

If it's a DLL that only exposes a C api you can.  That's how, for example,
your code can link against KERNEL32.DLL and others.  If there is a C++ api
though things change.


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Gao, Yunzhong
> <yunzhong_gao at playstation.sony.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Sorry for the delay in responding, we have been discussing this
> internally
> > and have not had time to do a proper investigation.
> >
> >> We absolutely have to ship a set of DLLs that run hosted in VS2012. Is
> >> there any sort of runtime incompatibility that would happen if we
> >> built with 2013, needed the 2013 CRT, but tried to run inside the
> >> VS2012 process? That would be a complete show stopper for us since we
> >> have a committed schedule for support of versions of VS that we host in.
> >
> >> Has any size/performance testing been done to compare LLVM built with
> >> the two versions of MSVC? Perf regressions are bad, m'kay?
> >
> > I do not know the answer to either of Alex's questions, so I am a bit
> > concerned. Two weeks is not going to be enough to test the updates; two
> > months might be more realistic...
> >
> > What is the impact on the static libraries (such as LLVMCore.lib or
> > ClangLex.lib)? Can libraries built with Visual Studio 2013 link with
> other
> > objects built with Visual Studio 2012 or earlier?
> >
> > - Gao
>
> No, you cannot link C++ code compiled with one version of VS to C++
> code compiled with a different version of VS. The C++ ABI and standard
> library change between versions.
>
> - Michael Spencer
>
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Aaron Ballman
> > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 6:01 AM
> > To: Renato Golin
> > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising minimum required Visual Studio
> version to 2013 for trunk
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>
> wrote:
> >> On 22 August 2014 13:43, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
> >>> My opposition to this switch was the timing. When we researched "what
> >>> minimum can we live with for C++11" nine months ago, we determined
> >>> what versions would make sense, which included MSVC 2012, and told
> >>> people what the plan was. My concern was pulling the rug out from
> >>> under people who were relying on that determination without putting
> >>> in the proper research and giving them enough time to react.
> >>
> >> The fact that you spoke, and others echoed your views, is proof that
> >> what you fear will not happen.
> >>
> >> Chandler's plan is simply showing the failures before we switch, which
> >> is exactly what we've done last time, what you're asking now, and what
> >> we'll do next.
> >>
> >> Progress is made by breaking small things, one at a time. :)
> >
> > We're in violent agreement. :-)
> >
> > ~Aaron
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140825/d82c2c6e/attachment.html>