Ted Mielczarek wrote:
Especially with something like MSVC, where some contributors have actually paid
for Pro versions of the suite and telling them to upgrade involves spending
actual money that can be a huge deterrent.
That's unfortunate since the professional VC2005, VC2008, VC2010 and n
On 2015-01-05 8:10 PM, Kent James wrote:
On 1/5/2015 3:30 PM, Kent James wrote:
On 1/5/2015 3:12 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 01:13:28PM -0800, Kent James wrote:
... Does esr31 actually fail to
build with 2013?
Mike
Let me trying build esr31 from VS2013. I've been assumi
On 2015-01-05 3:58 PM, Philip Chee wrote:
On 05/01/2015 07:43, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 02:28:30PM +0800, Philip Chee wrote:
To me, the default answer to whether we should keep supporting MinGW
is "no", merely because it will require time and effort that will not
directly be
On 1/5/2015 3:30 PM, Kent James wrote:
On 1/5/2015 3:12 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 01:13:28PM -0800, Kent James wrote:
... Does esr31 actually fail to
build with 2013?
Mike
Let me trying build esr31 from VS2013. I've been assuming it failed
since there were patches that
On 1/5/2015 3:12 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 01:13:28PM -0800, Kent James wrote:
We dropped support for 2010 during this cycle. Esr24 was not supported
anymore already, why do you need to build it? Does esr31 actually fail to
build with 2013?
Mike
I need to build esr24 bec
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 01:13:28PM -0800, Kent James wrote:
> On 1/4/2015 3:43 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >I don't think anyone in their right mind
> >would have installed 2012 after we dropped support for 2010, because the
> >current version was 2013 at the time, and what's the point to upgrade if
>
On 1/5/15 12:58 PM, Philip Chee wrote:
How close are we to being able to compile Firefox with clang on Windows?
IIRC clang is free/libre - but not copy-left.
Bug 752004 is the meta bug tracking work (mostly Ehsan's :) to build
Firefox with clang-cl on Windows.
On 1/4/2015 3:43 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
I don't think anyone in their right mind
would have installed 2012 after we dropped support for 2010, because the
current version was 2013 at the time, and what's the point to upgrade if
it's not for the current version?
I am not objecting to dropping sup
On 05/01/2015 07:43, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 02:28:30PM +0800, Philip Chee wrote:
>> To me, the default answer to whether we should keep supporting MinGW
>> is "no", merely because it will require time and effort that will not
>> directly benefit our users as we do not use tha
On 2015-01-05 8:09 AM, Ryan VanderMeulen wrote:
On 1/1/2015 6:08 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 ad
On 2015-01-04 11:53 PM, Dan Glastonbury wrote:
On 3/01/2015 6:22 am, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Yes, people should be discouraged from using MSVC2012 locally. Please
note that:
a) It is impractical for Mozilla to test every single toolchain that
every single developer out there uses. If you want an
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015, at 05:06 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> FWIW to the best of my knowledge, we have kept the last two MSVC
> releases supported for quite a long time, but I don't know if there has
> ever been a good reason for that (besides people having them installed
> locally.) I would very m
On 1/1/2015 6:08 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 20
On 3/01/2015 6:22 am, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Yes, people should be discouraged from using MSVC2012 locally. Please
note that:
a) It is impractical for Mozilla to test every single toolchain that
every single developer out there uses. If you want any kind of
guarantee that your builds will kee
On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 02:28:30PM +0800, Philip Chee wrote:
> On 03/01/2015 04:22, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
> > To me, the default answer to whether we should keep supporting MSVC2012
> > is "no", merely because it will require time and effort that will not
> > directly benefit our users as we do
On 04/01/15 19:28, Philip Chee wrote:
> To me, the default answer to whether we should keep supporting MinGW
> is "no", merely because it will require time and effort that will not
> directly benefit our users as we do not use that compiler to release
> Firefox. That is, without someone coming up
On 03/01/2015 04:22, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> To me, the default answer to whether we should keep supporting MSVC2012
> is "no", merely because it will require time and effort that will not
> directly benefit our users as we do not use that compiler to release
> Firefox. That is, without someone
On 2015-01-02 5:04 PM, RyanVM wrote:
Are there any licensing/OS support/other issues that would encourage us to keep
support for MSVC2012 hanging around?
Both compilers support Windows 7 and above, and the express version of
both compilers is freely (as in beer!) available (MSVC2012 cannot be
On 2015-01-02 3:32 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2015-01-02 2:03 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
In this case, the problem is that I wrote a patch to explicitly
delete ("= delete") some members of classes in mozilla::pkix.
mozilla::pkix cannot depend on MFBT for licensing and build
ind
Are there any licensing/OS support/other issues that would encourage us to keep
support for MSVC2012 hanging around?
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2015-01-02 2:03 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
>> In this case, the problem is that I wrote a patch to explicitly delete
>> ("= delete") some members of classes in mozilla::pkix. mozilla::pkix
>> cannot depend on MFBT for licensing and build independence reasons
>> (e.g. so it ca
On 2015-01-02 1:31 PM, Kent James wrote:
On 1/2/2015 6:23 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
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
co
you are arguing against fixing the issue
even if someone else provides a fix. Those are two separate matters. :-)
The best solution is to just drop MSVC2012 support and officially
allow features like "= delete" to be used from Gecko 37 onward.
I am personally in favor of dropping sup
Ehsan wrote:
> 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.
In this case, the problem is that I wrote a patch to explicitly delete
("= delete") some members of
On 1/2/2015 6:23 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
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
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 advantage
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 20
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
