[LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising minimum required Visual Studio version to 2013 for trunk

[Gao, Yunzhong]

Hi,
Sorry for the delay in responding, we have been discussing this internally
and have not had time to do a proper investigation.

> We absolutely have to ship a set of DLLs that run hosted in VS2012. Is 
> there any sort of runtime incompatibility that would happen if we 
> built with 2013, needed the 2013 CRT, but tried to run inside the 
> VS2012 process? That would be a complete show stopper for us since we 
> have a committed schedule for support of versions of VS that we host in.

> Has any size/performance testing been done to compare LLVM built with 
> the two versions of MSVC? Perf regressions are bad, m'kay?

I do not know the answer to either of Alex's questions, so I am a bit
concerned. Two weeks is not going to be enough to test the updates; two
months might be more realistic...

What is the impact on the static libraries (such as LLVMCore.lib or
ClangLex.lib)? Can libraries built with Visual Studio 2013 link with other
objects built with Visual Studio 2012 or earlier?

- Gao


-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Aaron Ballman
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 6:01 AM
To: Renato Golin
Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Raising minimum required Visual Studio version to 2013 for trunk

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 22 August 2014 13:43, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote:
>> My opposition to this switch was the timing. When we researched "what 
>> minimum can we live with for C++11" nine months ago, we determined 
>> what versions would make sense, which included MSVC 2012, and told 
>> people what the plan was. My concern was pulling the rug out from 
>> under people who were relying on that determination without putting 
>> in the proper research and giving them enough time to react.
>
> The fact that you spoke, and others echoed your views, is proof that 
> what you fear will not happen.
>
> Chandler's plan is simply showing the failures before we switch, which 
> is exactly what we've done last time, what you're asking now, and what 
> we'll do next.
>
> Progress is made by breaking small things, one at a time. :)

We're in violent agreement. :-)

~Aaron
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev