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

[Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev]

Totally agree

2016-08-02 10:24 GMT-07:00 David Majnemer via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:

> Hello,
>
> Today we hit another VS 2013 breakage <
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-windows/builds/26666/steps/run%20tests/logs/stdio>
> 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
> added).
>
> What do you all think?  Are folks still stuck on VS2013?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160802/f2499df9/attachment-0001.html>