<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 Sep 1, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Reid Kleckner <<a href="mailto:rnk@google.com" class="">rnk@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Mehdi Amini via cfe-dev <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank" class="">cfe-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class="">Isn’t a big (the most) reason for supporting “old” toolchains to allow downstream users to upgrade with some flexibility?</div><div class="">If I have a large codebase that is using LLVM (let say a few custom backends), and is validated with “MSVC 2013”, I can upgrade to “2015” but I will need some qualification/validation: this is not free and take some time. If you drop aggressively supports for “old” toolchain it means that I’m either stuck with an “old” LLVM or that I have to update earlier than expected.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Isn’t this usually balanced in upstream LLVM to upgrade when there is a real *benefit* to it? </div><div class="">I’m mentioning it because it seems to conflict with the "always upgrade to the newest one unless there are serious issues with it” you mentioned above.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I agree, we should raise the minimum VS version requirement when the benefits to the LLVM community outweigh the costs of switching for major LLVM contributors and users. I think we'll always make that decision in the same way: by raising it on the mailing lists and discussing the pros and cons. That's basically what David said when he kicked this whole discussion off, anyway:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"""<span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">But if we find ourselves in a situation where asking folks to upgrade to a compiler which has been widely deployed soothes development for the greater LLVM community, we should consider dropping support for the older versions of that compiler."""</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class="">I think everything is working as intended here.</span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Right, to be clear there is no misunderstanding: I was absolutely not suggesting the opposite when answering Zach..</div><div><br class=""></div><div>— </div><div>Mehdi</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><span style="font-size:12.8px" class=""> We raised the VS 2013 upgrade issue, discussed it, determined that it was holding us back, and now we're doing the upgrade. If VS "15" brings major language compatibility improvements, I imagine we'll be having this same discussion again next year. If it doesn't, and supporting 2015 and "15" at the same time has the same cost, then we won't bother raising the floor for a while.</span></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>