[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising LLVM minimum required MSVC version to 2013 for trunk

[Richard Gorton]

"Not that broken".
Really?  What a truly self-condemning statement.

Why do developers make such ridiculous statements about broken tools?


On 8/23/2014 5:52 PM, DeadMG wrote:
> That feature list is a hypothetical. Hypothetically, VS2012 CTP 
> supported variadics, but they were unusably broken. I've yet to see 
> how buggy it is. However, the fact that there have been three CTPs for 
> VS "14" rather than just one does make me feel better about the chances.
>
>
> On 23 August 2014 22:49, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com 
> <mailto:yaron.keren at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     After trying many IDEs on both Linux and Windows my own preference
>     is Visual Studio.
>
>     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
>
>     http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2014/08/21/c-11-14-features-in-visual-studio-14-ctp3.aspx
>
>     Visual C++ 2013 is not up to clang or gcc conformance level, but
>     not that broken.
>
>     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.
>
>     Yaron
>
>
>
>     2014-08-23 23:55 GMT+03:00 DeadMG <wolfeinstein at gmail.com
>     <mailto: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
>         <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
>
>             On 22 August 2014 20:18, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es
>             <mailto: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
>             itself.
>
>             Or maybe the Windows environment is so alien that I'm
>             basing my points
>             on completely unreasonable assumptions...
>
>             cheers,
>             -renato
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             cfe-dev mailing list
>             cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>             http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         cfe-dev mailing list
>         cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>         http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140823/e77a58b8/attachment.html>