[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising LLVM minimum required MSVC version to 2013 for trunk
yaron.keren at gmail.com
Sat Aug 23 14:49:14 PDT 2014
After trying many IDEs on both Linux and Windows my own preference is
As for the C++ support, MS are doing much better than before few years when
they were not paying much attention.
See this new blog post
Visual C++ 2013 is not up to clang or gcc conformance level, but not that
clang-cl would be great *except* it knows how to produce debug lines
(codeview) but not full debug information (pdb files), so no real
debugging. That's a real showstopper.
2014-08-23 23:55 GMT+03:00 DeadMG <wolfeinstein at gmail.com>:
> MSVC survives because there's no effective competition- it's like
> communications providers in the United States or political parties in
> China. The alternatives like GCC have no decent development environments
> for them, and Clang has the bonus of not being mature w.r.t. things like
> Standard libraries. The reality is, there's nowhere to go *but* MSVC. This
> stuff is the major reason why I'd positively love clang-cl. As soon as that
> is done, then support for cl can probably be entirely dropped and the state
> of the available compilers will be drastically improved.
> Microsoft *is* issuing more and more out-of-band bugfix updates. But the
> current state for VS2013 is still that most bugfixes will hit in VS "14"
> (currently projected for 2015).
> On 23 August 2014 21:24, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 22 August 2014 20:18, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:
>> > I second this. My experience with VS is that new features are usually
>> > broken if you go beyond the simple cases. And the roadmaps have little
>> > credibility, based on a continuous flow of disappointments since...
>> > forever.
>> Is there any interest from Microsoft to actually fix those problems,
>> or is that their policy that what's there is there? The latter seems
>> to be their policy on other products, and for what I know, VS too. I
>> ask that because holding on partial and broken support that will never
>> be fixed or completed is kind of backwards.
>> I'm not a Windows guy, but I wonder why so many people use MSVC if the
>> support is so patchy and hopeless as most people seem to imply. Also,
>> compiling Clang with MSVC and making Clang MSVC compatible are two
>> completely different things. A commercial toolchain based on MSVC
>> compatibility doesn't necessarily need to be compiled with MSVC
>> Or maybe the Windows environment is so alien that I'm basing my points
>> on completely unreasonable assumptions...
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-dev