Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: LLVM Drops Support For Older Visual Studio

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,650

    Default LLVM Drops Support For Older Visual Studio

    Phoronix: LLVM Drops Support For Older Visual Studio

    To the ire of some developers, LLVM 3.4 is dropping support for Visual Studio 2008 as its host compiler...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQxODk

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    366

    Default

    What an idiotic decision. They've basically guaranteed almost zero corporate pickup now.

    ((Still stuck on MSVC 2005))

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    What an idiotic decision. They've basically guaranteed almost zero corporate pickup now.

    ((Still stuck on MSVC 2005))
    Because the compiler used to compile your compiler is really the driving factor for corporate adoption...

    As a software developer I fully support the decision to make use of features found in modern compilers instead of being stuck with what was available 5 years ago.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    What an idiotic decision. They've basically guaranteed almost zero corporate pickup now.

    ((Still stuck on MSVC 2005))
    It's the default compiler backend on OS X, iOS and FreeBSD. There's plenty of corporate adoption deriving from that without any bending over backwards to support ancient compilers.

    Windows users aren't contributing to LLVM so LLVM doesn't have good Windows support. That's how open-source projects work, individuals and organizations contribute to areas relevant to their use cases or interests. LLVM and clang don't even have exception support on 64-bit Windows, and the unwinding on 32-bit is a hack.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    What an idiotic decision. They've basically guaranteed almost zero corporate pickup now.

    ((Still stuck on MSVC 2005))
    I'll be blunt: No one gives a rat's ass about MSVC support in LLVM/Clang other than folks hosed on Windows who can't stand microsoft's broken tools and who want to leverage LLVM/Clang/LLDB/Compiler-RT/etc., and who need cross-platform support for their products.

    They are the ones who are driving the Itanium ABI requirement in trunk and they are the group who have to support it. It makes sense for them to cut ties and focus on Visual Studio 2010 and newer.

    The rest of us in the UNIX World [OS X, FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris, AIX, etc.,] couldn't give two s**** about MS support.

    Chandler Caruth said it best: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/c...ly/030948.html

    On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Wang Qi <wqking at outlook.com> wrote:

    > -1.
    >
    > I believe there are still a lot of people using VC 2008, though I can't
    > give the data.
    > VC 2008 (even the express version) is enough for a lot of development,
    > such like game development.
    >
    > Most likely I myself will continue using VC 2008 for at least two or more
    > years.
    >
    > Unlike other C++ compiler, **Clang is not only a compiler, but also a
    > great open source library**. An open source library should better keep
    > lowest compiler/platform requirements, when possible.
    >
    > Also, seems Microsoft's development tools have quite long life and can
    > spread into many years. For example, VC6 is not complete dead up to
    > today... (some time ago I read on Reddit comment that somebody still needs
    > to maintain a code base written with VC6).
    >

    Unless someone within the community steps forward with a powerful argument
    to continue to support VC 2008, I'm going to make the call: we don't
    support it.

    Why? I don't actually disagree with your points, but I think there are
    overriding concerns:

    1) The pragmatic fact is that we simply don't have enough contributors and
    active (within the community) users that use, exercise, report bugs, and
    provide patches to support VC2008 to credibly say we support it. The fact
    is that we already don't, and we won't going forward regardless of what
    folks say on this email thread.

    2) #1 isn't a problem that it is worth it to the community to solve. That
    is, I would rather have the developers and members of the community working
    to better support more modern Windows platforms rather than this old one.
    So I think it is actively in our best interest to not invest in changing #1.

    3) LLVM (and its subprojects) have a long history of beneficially tracking
    and leveraging modern aspects of C++. We want to do more of this faster,
    not less of it slower, because it significantly improves the cleanliness,
    maintainability, simplicity, and performance of our libraries. To this end,
    it is directly to the benefit of the project to stay as close as possible
    to the latest versions of the various toolchain vendors.

    4) Users of LLVM that are necessarily dealing with an unchanging toolchain
    and environment always have the option of freezing their version of LLVM
    along with that environment, or working assiduously to build a sufficiently
    strong role within the community to both provide the necessary testing and
    fixes for the environment (#1 above) and overcome the burden it places on
    the rest of the project (#3).
    Reality check: LLVM is not here to make Microsoft's ecosystem better.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gamerk2 View Post
    What an idiotic decision. They've basically guaranteed almost zero corporate pickup now.

    ((Still stuck on MSVC 2005))
    Why don't those pesky linux users support mah windows?? It's obviously not up to us windows users to contriboot windows support!!!!111one

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •