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

[David Tweed]

Thanks, that table is very helpful, although I note that there are several
rows whose entries are "Partial", so I either those features need to be
disallowed or some description of what partial means would seem to be
required there.


On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a table detailing C++11 features support for Visual C++ 2010,
> 2012, 2013
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/hh567368.aspx
>
> Specifically, range-based for loops are supported in Visual C++ 2012, 2013
> but not in 2010.
>
> Yaron
>
>
>
> 2013/10/28 David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com>
>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote:
>>
>>> Dix Lorenz <lists at dix-lorenz.de> writes:
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> That was how VS 2012 worked at release time. On Update 1 they added
>>> support for building Windows XP applications with the VS 2012 compiler.
>>>
>>> VS 2013 C++ compiler can build XP applications too.
>>>
>>
>> So this complexity highlights to me one important thing: whatever group
>> of MSVC tools are
>> selected as the baseline, it would be really helpful to have people
>> knowledgeable
>> about that contribute to the description of precisely which C++11
>> constructs are
>> allowed (and if there are any surprising cases which don't work), for
>> those of us
>> who have no idea precisely what will get past an MSVC compiler and no
>> means
>> or desire to set up a Windows system just for testing. It's very
>> frustrating when
>> development turns in to a "I checked on all my systems, checked in and get
>> complaints from people on very different systems whose build broke"
>> experience.
>> (Yeah, I know there's any irony there...) Getting a clearly delimited
>> feature list
>> should help reduce that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dave
>>
>> --
>> cheers, dave tweed__________________________
>> high-performance computing and machine vision expert:
>> david.tweed at gmail.com
>> "while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." --
>> attempted insult seen on slashdot
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>>
>


-- 
cheers, dave tweed__________________________
high-performance computing and machine vision expert: david.tweed at gmail.com
"while having code so boring anyone can maintain it, use Python." --
attempted insult seen on slashdot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131028/4535726e/attachment.html>