[llvm-dev] Revisiting our informal policy to support two versions of MSVC

David Majnemer via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Aug 2 10:24:36 PDT 2016


Today we hit another VS 2013 breakage <
which results us having to alter LLVM.

While we have no documented policy of supporting two version of MSVC, we do
have an informal agreement that we should support the last two versions.

I suggest that we alter our informal policy to the following:

"If a compiler version keeps getting in the way and a newer compiler is
available, we should ask people to upgrade to that newer compiler."

If we can support ten versions of MSVC with little burden, I don't see a
reason why we shouldn't.

But if we find ourselves in a situation where asking folks to upgrade to a
compiler which has been widely deployed soothes development for the greater
LLVM community, we should consider dropping support for the older versions
of that compiler.

In this case, dropping VS2013 allows us to use more C++11 features with
confidence.  Notably, move constructors will be synthesized instead of
having to be manually written (and kept in sync with data members getting

What do you all think?  Are folks still stuck on VS2013?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160802/4db59f74/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list