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

[Chandler Carruth]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> 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.
>
> A different issue than what VS 2012 can _target_, is what VS 2012 can
> _run on_: it cannot run on Windows XP.
>
> Say what you want about how old Windows XP is and how close it is to
> being end-of-life'd by Microsoft, at the end of the day it still
> commands one third (!) of all desktop operating system market share [1].
>
> So, by dropping support for VS 2010, you will be making any developer
> who uses Windows XP - potentially a large number of developers given
> Windows XP's still huge market share - unable to build clang.
>

I don't see any reason to believe that developers are evenly distributed
across the market of desktops, much less LLVM developers.

I also have heard no LLVM developers jump and down saying this would block
them from using LLVM, so I don't think is an actual concern.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131108/de150394/attachment.html>