Mike Hommey wrote:
note that the express version requires to be registered, now.
Technically that's only true if you want to build or debug using Visual
Studio rather than the command-line tools, but that's still a pain.
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
_
Filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1085767
-Nick
On 21/10/14 7:34 am, Stefan Sitter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> are there plans to switch the Thunderbird builders from VS2010 to VS2013
> as well?
>
> /Stefan
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-pla
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 12:09:40PM -0400, Mike Hoye wrote:
> On 2014-10-20 11:56 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> >On 2014-10-20 11:44 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Can you or someone else in the know update
> >>https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Win
Hi,
are there plans to switch the Thunderbird builders from VS2010 to VS2013
as well?
/Stefan
On 14.10.2014 08:10, David Major wrote:
VS2013 is now on inbound and all Windows builds are green.
(Win64 builds were actually switched late last week, as they are
unaffected by trains.)
Please fi
;> * Check the build log:
>>VS2013 logs contain the string 'Compiler Version 18.00'.
>>VS2010 logs contain the string 'Compiler Version 16.00'.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>>
>>> Fro
On 2014-10-20 11:56 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-10-20 11:44 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
Hi,
Can you or someone else in the know update
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Windows_Prerequisites
and friends, or (if you don't like wiki software, don't
On 20/10/2014 16:56, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-10-20 11:44 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
Hi,
Can you or someone else in the know update
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Windows_Prerequisites
and friends, or (if you don't like wiki software, don't want
On 2014-10-20 11:44 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
Hi,
Can you or someone else in the know update
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Windows_Prerequisites
and friends, or (if you don't like wiki software, don't want to create
an account, or have other reasons
Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:21:07 PM
Subject: Re: Switching to Visual Studio 2013
Update: the switch will happen early in version 36.
The build machines needed a reinstall of VS2013 due to a deployment issue. As
merge day is coming up, it's not a good time for major changes. We'll wait
fo
On 2014-10-20 11:44 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
Hi,
Can you or someone else in the know update
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Windows_Prerequisites
and friends,
Working on it.
- mhoye
___
dev-platform mai
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:10:58PM -0700, David Major wrote:
> VS2013 is now on inbound and all Windows builds are green.
>
> (Win64 builds were actually switched late last week, as they are
> unaffected by trains.)
>
> Please file bugs blocking 914596 if you encounter any VS2013-specific
> issue
David
- Original Message -
> From: "David Major"
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org, firefox-...@mozilla.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:21:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Switching to Visual Studio 2013
>
> Update: the switch will happen early in version 36.
>
he process.
David
- Original Message -
> From: "David Major"
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org, firefox-...@mozilla.org
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 6:27:58 PM
> Subject: Switching to Visual Studio 2013
>
> We plan to switch the Windows build machines to
Please open bugs for this kind of thing. I filed 1061339 for you.
- Original Message -
> From: "xunxun"
> To: "David Major"
> Cc: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org, firefox-...@mozilla.org
> Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 9:01:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Switc
And after switching to VS2013, we should enable AVX2 on libvpx then,
because libvpx has some AVX2 optimization code.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, David Major wrote:
> We plan to switch the Windows build machines to Visual Studio 2013 on the
> Firefox 35 train.
>
> Some benefits from this ch
> From: "Gian-Carlo Pascutto"
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 11:23:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Switching to Visual Studio 2013
>
> On 27/08/2014 17:30, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
>
> > I think our commitment to the Express ve
On 2014-08-27, 2:23 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
On 27/08/2014 17:30, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
I think our commitment to the Express versions should be "ensure it
works with whatever Microsoft makes it easy to get a hold of". We should
fix bugs that impact developers' ability to build with the v
On 27/08/2014 17:30, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> I think our commitment to the Express versions should be "ensure it
> works with whatever Microsoft makes it easy to get a hold of". We should
> fix bugs that impact developers' ability to build with the versions of
> the toolchain we support, but I hav
On 8/27/2014 10:22 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> On 26/08/2014 13:06, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
>> Relatedly, we need to ensure it's still possible to build Firefox with
>> the express version of MSVC (the free of charge one) corresponding to
>> the minimum MSVC version we support.
> It seems to work
On 2014-08-27 10:22 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
One issue related to the discussion in bug 914596 is that it's harder to
find the non-latest-version of the Express version. That is, if you
install Express now, you get SP3.
It's probably possible to get SP2 anyhow, but I couldn't easily find a
On 26/08/2014 13:06, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Relatedly, we need to ensure it's still possible to build Firefox with
> the express version of MSVC (the free of charge one) corresponding to
> the minimum MSVC version we support.
It seems to work fine with MSVC2013 Express - I'm using it for
developmen
On 2014-08-26, 9:14 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
On 8/26/2014 6:20 PM, Neil wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I was talking about MSVC2012 + the November CTP. We absolutely don't
want to support older versions of 2012 (or 2013 for that matter.)
What does that mean and why isn't it mentioned on MDN
On 8/26/2014 6:20 PM, Neil wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I was talking about MSVC2012 + the November CTP. We absolutely don't
want to support older versions of 2012 (or 2013 for that matter.)
What does that mean and why isn't it mentioned on MDN?
The MSVC development team announced in 2012
Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I was talking about MSVC2012 + the November CTP. We absolutely don't
want to support older versions of 2012 (or 2013 for that matter.)
What does that mean and why isn't it mentioned on MDN?
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
_
On 2014-08-26, 11:39 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
On 8/26/2014 10:37 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-08-26, 11:29 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
On 8/26/2014 10:09 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On 8/26/2014 11:03 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I would like us to update the minimum supported MSVC version t
On 8/26/2014 10:37 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-08-26, 11:29 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
On 8/26/2014 10:09 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On 8/26/2014 11:03 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I would like us to update the minimum supported MSVC version to 2012
as soon as possible. That will give us acc
On 2014-08-26, 11:29 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
On 8/26/2014 10:09 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On 8/26/2014 11:03 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I would like us to update the minimum supported MSVC version to 2012
as soon as possible. That will give us access to the following C++
features which are a
On 2014-08-26, 11:16 AM, Lars Hansen wrote:
From: "Ehsan Akhgari"
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:03:31 PM
Subject: Re: Switching to Visual Studio 2013
I would like us to update the minimum supported MSVC version to 2012 as
soon as possible. That will give us access to the f
On 2014-08-26, 11:09 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On 8/26/2014 11:03 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I would like us to update the minimum supported MSVC version to 2012
as soon as possible. That will give us access to the following C++
features which are all supported on gcc 4.4 (aka our Vintage Compil
On 8/26/2014 10:09 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On 8/26/2014 11:03 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I would like us to update the minimum supported MSVC version to 2012
as soon as possible. That will give us access to the following C++
features which are all supported on gcc 4.4 (aka our Vintage Compiler)
> From: "Ehsan Akhgari"
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:03:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Switching to Visual Studio 2013
>
> I would like us to update the minimum supported MSVC version to 2012 as
> soon as possible. That will give us access to the following C++
> feat
On 8/26/2014 11:03 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>
> I would like us to update the minimum supported MSVC version to 2012
> as soon as possible. That will give us access to the following C++
> features which are all supported on gcc 4.4 (aka our Vintage Compiler)
> and MSVC starting from 2012:
>
> * Va
On 2014-08-26, 6:57 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
On 8/26/2014 2:03 AM, Makoto Kato wrote:
When do we support old version of Visual Studio after switching to
VS2013?
Now we still support VS2010 + SDK 7.1 as minimal requirement.
Generally we have worked with a few unofficial guidelines for toolcha
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:57:15AM -0400, Ted Mielczarek wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 2:03 AM, Makoto Kato wrote:
> > When do we support old version of Visual Studio after switching to
> > VS2013?
> >
> > Now we still support VS2010 + SDK 7.1 as minimal requirement.
> >
> Generally we have worked with a f
On 8/26/2014 2:03 AM, Makoto Kato wrote:
> When do we support old version of Visual Studio after switching to
> VS2013?
>
> Now we still support VS2010 + SDK 7.1 as minimal requirement.
>
Generally we have worked with a few unofficial guidelines for toolchain
support:
1) If an older version of a to
On 8/26/2014 2:03 AM, Makoto Kato wrote:
> When do we support old version of Visual Studio after switching to
> VS2013?
>
> Now we still support VS2010 + SDK 7.1 as minimal requirement.
>
Generally we have worked with a few unofficial guidelines for toolchain
support:
1) If an older version of a to
When do we support old version of Visual Studio after switching to VS2013?
Now we still support VS2010 + SDK 7.1 as minimal requirement.
On 2014/08/22 15:27, David Major wrote:
We plan to switch the Windows build machines to Visual Studio 2013 on the
Firefox 35 train.
Some benefits from this
On 8/23/2014 6:15 AM, Neil wrote:
David Major wrote:
* No more linker OOM crashes. VS2013 includes a 64-bit toolchain for
32-bit builds, so the linker will no longer be limited to 4GB address
space.
So will you be requiring 64-bit builders?
For PGO builds, probably yes. For normal develop
David Major wrote:
* No more linker OOM crashes. VS2013 includes a 64-bit toolchain for 32-bit
builds, so the linker will no longer be limited to 4GB address space.
So will you be requiring 64-bit builders?
--
Warning: May contain traces of nuts.
_
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM, David Major wrote:
> We plan to switch the Windows build machines to Visual Studio 2013 on the
> Firefox 35 train.
>
> Some benefits from this change:
> * No more linker OOM crashes. VS2013 includes a 64-bit toolchain for 32-bit
> builds, so the linker will no lo
On 8/22/2014 10:34 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
Do we have a configure check for this so people trying this won't
waste oodles of time only to get internal errors? :-)
No we don't. It only affects PGO builds, which no normal person ever
does, so I think the relative effort of implementing and
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:27 PM, David Major wrote:
> We plan to switch the Windows build machines to Visual Studio 2013 on the
> Firefox 35 train.
>
> Some benefits from this change:
> * No more linker OOM crashes. VS2013 includes a 64-bit toolchain for 32-bit
> builds, so the linker will no l
On 22/08/2014 15:55, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 8/22/2014 5:04 AM, xunxun wrote:
And we should use VC2013 update2 or newer edition, whose PGO is faster
than
WPO.
Yes, we had to wait for update 2 for fixes that would allow Firefox PGO
builds to complete at all (there were previously internal
On 8/22/2014 5:04 AM, xunxun wrote:
And we should use VC2013 update2 or newer edition, whose PGO is faster than
WPO.
Yes, we had to wait for update 2 for fixes that would allow Firefox PGO
builds to complete at all (there were previously internal compile errors
during the link phase). Update
And we should use VC2013 update2 or newer edition, whose PGO is faster than
WPO.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:27 PM, David Major wrote:
> We plan to switch the Windows build machines to Visual Studio 2013 on the
> Firefox 35 train.
>
> Some benefits from this change:
> * No more linker OOM crashes
We plan to switch the Windows build machines to Visual Studio 2013 on the
Firefox 35 train.
Some benefits from this change:
* No more linker OOM crashes. VS2013 includes a 64-bit toolchain for 32-bit
builds, so the linker will no longer be limited to 4GB address space.
* The linker capacity open
46 matches
Mail list logo
