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

[Nikola Smiljanic]

Probably because it works for them. Company I work for is only interested
in Windows and as such is happy to write code in any dialect of C++ that
msvc supports, including extensions like "for each" loop, __super,
abstract, etc.


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Richard Gorton <rcgorton at cog-e.com> wrote:

>  "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> 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>:
>>
>>>  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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing listcfe-dev at cs.uiuc.eduhttp://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/20140824/d7d16141/attachment.html>