[cfe-dev] RFC: A proposal to move toward using C++11 features in LLVM & Clang / bounding support for old host compilers

["C. Bergström"]

On 10/28/13 11:45 AM, Dix Lorenz wrote:
> On 27.10.2013, at 20:07, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:
>
>> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes:
>>
>>>> One short term caveat: Windows is special.
>> s/Windows/Visual Studio.
>>
>> MinGW has the latest and greatest gcc.
>>
>>> I don't see how it is special.
>> It is special, sadly, and I'm not talking about C++11 support only, but
>> about the policies MS follows which too often makes very inconvenient
>> (or even impossible) to upgrade to newer VS versions. The latest example
>> that comes to mind was the release of VS2012: they removed Windows XP
>> support, as if upgrading the OS is a non-issue if you ask for it to your
>> users on a polite tone. An uproar followed and they backpedaled on a
>> service pack some months later, but that not always happens.
> I might be mistaken, but to compile for WinXP on VS 2012 you have to switch the Platform Toolset and AFAICT that means it will essentially be using the VS 2010 compiler and libraries. So when it comes to using newer C++ functionality you will still be stuck on the VS 2010 level even if you are using VS 2012 and if you are using any VS2012 improvements you will not be able to compile for XP.
>
> Basically (again: AFAICT): if you want clang to be compiled for WinXP using VS, the C++ features of VS 2010 are a hard limit and that will not change.
XP mainstream support is already EOL and extended support is  April 2014
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycle

I can guess it may get extended, but imho it seems unreasonable to hold 
up clang based on a non-supported product. (Yes the reality is many many 
people will continue to use it, but....)

Wasn't VS 2012 express the 1st to ship a free 64bit C++ compiler?
--------
My vote would be 2012+ and drop 2010