On 2015-01-02 4:36 AM, Kent James wrote:
On 1/1/2015 3:08 PM, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote:
Having just filed my fourth "MSVC2012 is busted" bug since we dropped
support for 2010 a few weeks ago, I'm wondering what the point of even
supporting 2012 is? Are there any licensing/OS support/etc advantages to
keeping it around vs. just leaving 2013 as our only supported compiler?
Because there's certainly a non-zero cost to supporting it at this point.
Note that MSVC 2012 is "supported" in the sense that we'd accept patches
that help fix it, and we won't check in patches that require compiler
features that 2012 does not support. Traditionally people who use
compilers different than what we use on our infra may face local build
issues from time to time, and this is not specific only to MSVC 2012.
The issue for me is that there were multiple patches required to support
VS2013 in the first place, and AFAIK these have not been ported to older
gecko versions. So I don't believe that you can compile esr31 with VS2013.
Why is that an issue? When we discuss dropping support for compilers,
we only talk about mozilla-central, and you should be able to install
MSVC2012 and 2013 side by side and use the compiler you want depending
on what tree you are trying to build.
It would be much easier to keep it running if there was at least one
builder that ran VS2012 that failed when someone checks in a compile
that breaks it. The non-zero cost is mostly fixing there regressions,
and would be much lower cost if they were caught earlier.
But what benefit would we get out of doing that? Keeping MSVC2012
working should not be a goal to itself. I can't think of what benefit
adding official support for MSVC2012 can have.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
