<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">While that is correct, it does not hold for any of us because LLVM exposes a C++ API amongst it's own components.<div><br></div><div>Alex</div><div><br><div><div>On Aug 25, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Zachary Turner <<a href="mailto:zturner@google.com">zturner@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">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.</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Michael Spencer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bigcheesegs@gmail.com" target="_blank">bigcheesegs@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Gao, Yunzhong<br>
<<a href="mailto:yunzhong_gao@playstation.sony.com">yunzhong_gao@playstation.sony.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
> Sorry for the delay in responding, we have been discussing this internally<br>
> and have not had time to do a proper investigation.<br>
><br>
>> We absolutely have to ship a set of DLLs that run hosted in VS2012. Is<br>
>> there any sort of runtime incompatibility that would happen if we<br>
>> built with 2013, needed the 2013 CRT, but tried to run inside the<br>
>> VS2012 process? That would be a complete show stopper for us since we<br>
>> have a committed schedule for support of versions of VS that we host in.<br>
><br>
>> Has any size/performance testing been done to compare LLVM built with<br>
>> the two versions of MSVC? Perf regressions are bad, m'kay?<br>
><br>
> I do not know the answer to either of Alex's questions, so I am a bit<br>
> concerned. Two weeks is not going to be enough to test the updates; two<br>
> months might be more realistic...<br>
><br>
> What is the impact on the static libraries (such as LLVMCore.lib or<br>
> ClangLex.lib)? Can libraries built with Visual Studio 2013 link with other<br>
> objects built with Visual Studio 2012 or earlier?<br>
><br>
> - Gao<br>
<br>
</div>No, you cannot link C++ code compiled with one version of VS to C++<br>
code compiled with a different version of VS. The C++ ABI and standard<br>
library change between versions.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
- Michael Spencer<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu">llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu">llvmdev-bounces@cs.uiuc.edu</a>] On Behalf Of Aaron Ballman<br>
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 6:01 AM<br>
> To: Renato Golin<br>
> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List<br>
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising minimum required Visual Studio version to 2013 for trunk<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Renato Golin <<a href="mailto:renato.golin@linaro.org">renato.golin@linaro.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On 22 August 2014 13:43, Aaron Ballman <<a href="mailto:aaron@aaronballman.com">aaron@aaronballman.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> My opposition to this switch was the timing. When we researched "what<br>
>>> minimum can we live with for C++11" nine months ago, we determined<br>
>>> what versions would make sense, which included MSVC 2012, and told<br>
>>> people what the plan was. My concern was pulling the rug out from<br>
>>> under people who were relying on that determination without putting<br>
>>> in the proper research and giving them enough time to react.<br>
>><br>
>> The fact that you spoke, and others echoed your views, is proof that<br>
>> what you fear will not happen.<br>
>><br>
>> Chandler's plan is simply showing the failures before we switch, which<br>
>> is exactly what we've done last time, what you're asking now, and what<br>
>> we'll do next.<br>
>><br>
>> Progress is made by breaking small things, one at a time. :)<br>
><br>
> We're in violent agreement. :-)<br>
><br>
> ~Aaron<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>LLVM Developers mailing list<br><a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br><a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>