<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 22, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Daniel Dilts <<a href="mailto:diltsman@gmail.com" class="">diltsman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Chris Bieneman <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:beanz@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">beanz@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div class=""><div class=""><div class="h5"><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Aug 22, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Daniel Dilts <<a href="mailto:diltsman@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">diltsman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Chris Bieneman <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:beanz@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">beanz@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div class="">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 class="">
</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Is there an existing policy on how supported compiler versions are selected? </div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div><div class="">There was a discussion last year (<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-October/066847.html" target="_blank" class="">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" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Chris</div></font></span></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">From the link:</div><div class=""><em class="">we support building with the
</em><i class="">most recent 2 versions of VS available at the *prior* release. For example</i><i class=""> when we branch for 3.4, the two versions will be 2012 and 2013. Those two</i><i class=""> would be supported on mainline from then through 3.5, and when we branch</i><i class=""> for 3.5 we would re-evaluate.
</i></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If that is followed exactly support for VS2012 would not be able to be dropped. However, it is rather easy to get the latest VC++ compiler from Microsoft at no cost (Express edition anybody?), so I don't have any real concern with dropping support for VS2012.</div>
</div><br class=""></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div>Also from that link:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><i class="">One short term caveat: Windows is special.</i></div><div class=""><i class=""><br class=""></i></div><div class=""><i class="">I don't think we should follow the 2-year rule for Windows. It really is</i></div><div class=""><i class="">special for at least three reasons:</i></div><div class=""><i class="">1) We can't bootstrap on Windows. While there is tons of exciting work</i></div><div class=""><i class="">going on here to change that, even then the quality of Windows support is</i></div><div class=""><i class="">likely to change very rapidly.</i></div><div class=""><i class="">2) Visual Studio's C++ support moved very slowly for a long time, and is</i></div><div class=""><i class="">now improving at an amazing rate. We shouldn't be hampered by past problems</i></div><div class=""><i class="">and should take advantage of this recent progress.</i></div><div class=""><i class="">3) We have less insight into when new versions of the MSVC++ toolchain</i></div><div class=""><i class="">will arrive.</i></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="">I feel it is also worth recognizing that by the time we branch for 3.6 the two most recent versions of Visual Studio will probably be 2013 and 14, so we’re really only proposing moving forward a few months early.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Chris</div></body></html>