Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On 1/24/23 05:00, Thiago Macieira wrote: You're talking about the ability to write code given a compiler you can't move from and what one needs to do to keep that working. I am asking why people are staying with the older one, if the new one is available and shouldn't (in theory) produce a compatibility burden with already-compiled code. Well, Scott actually answered your question. The new version (besides not being free) __always__ drops or breaks something. Tony pointed out the Enum class debacle and Scott has pointed out others. The newest of the new has gone to the God-awful subscription model. Newer != Better No matter how much Microsoft wants to charge money for it This has sparked a groundswell of interest in previously dormant projects like OpenWatcom. http://openwatcom.org OpenWatcom V2 https://open-watcom.github.io https://github.com/open-watcom/open-watcom-v2#open-watcom-v2-fork It has also set a lot of users and companies into the arms of Borland once again. C++ Builder https://blogs.embarcadero.com/successful-windows-development-with-this-c-compiler-download/ For those looking to play the Microsoft game yet and needing multiple licenses, it looks like your "cheapest" entry point is to sign a computer leasing arrangement with Dell or Lenovo. From the Dell clients I've worked for you have to least __all__ of your computers from them. You define N set configurations and they give you an iron clad 24-hour turn around for replacement on any of those. With that they will set up a "company store" where employees can only install from that store. Provide (for additional fee) some certified Microsoft License manager, controlled access for installing licensed products, etc. Big brother wants to own you. They want you to rent a claw hammer month by month and if you stop paying you can no longer use the claw hammer. Pretty much every company going to the "subscription" model for software development tools will go under. Companies won't pay it, at least not for long. They will move to perpetual license and/or free stuff as quickly as possible because your subscription model now made that a cost effective decision. The straightforward answer to your question is: LTS == 15 years not 5 https://www.logikalsolutions.com/wordpress/information-technology/lts/ I will take the medical device answer once step further. Somewhere between 70-90% of all ER, Post-Op, and ICU units in America are still running 32-bit Windows 7. A small percentage are still running Windows XP. They are getting shiny new medical devices, including advanced surgical robots, and the back-end data feeds must support Cerner, Epic, etc. on a 32-bit platform. Despite what Microsoft and others have publicly said, this situation will persist for at least 10 more years and Microsoft will be forced by government agencies to continue providing support. The only "safe" way to upgrade any of those three entities is to build a new one either within the same building or in a new wing. You cannot mix & match versions in such units because patient risk is too high. Building a new unit (or wing) will cost them $24 million to $64 million. That includes training staff on new equipment. That takes time and the ability to hire enough staff given the post-peak-pandemic burn-out rate. > That just means you had to downgrade to the previous minor version of 2017. Unless Microsoft has changed its ways, "downgrading" isn't generally an option. I got burned by this with Windows 95, an OS that forced developers to re-install it multiple times per year. The Install-Shield type applications allowed the owner to set a drop dead date. Visual SlickEdit and a few Microsoft products came up with the infamous "This software is too old, you need to buy a new version" message when attempting to install. Ever since then I've always done bare metal backups at least weekly on all machines. The other issue is that Microsoft (and other software vendors) leave trash all over the place when you attempt to uninstall. Registry entries and config files will all be looking for a new version that is no longer there. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and hat. No commercial software vendor properly tests their uninstalls. I do hope you read the blog post. The bulk of us developers are the roofer with the hammer. We have very little reason to purchase a new hammer once we have a hammer that allows us to earn money. We have ZERO reason to pay monthly/annual subscriptions to be able to use our hammer to earn money roofing houses. Medical devices, accounting systems, inventory management, to desktop applications care absolutely nothing about bleeding edge. One company I wrote software for is still (as of circa 2010 anyway) shipping software for Apple Performa (sp?) computers that were last made in the early 1990s. Norton anti-virus still supports 32-bit XP. So do several of the other big names.
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
Thiago Macieira wrote in news:5359579.29KlJPOoH8__16072.5475566991$1675548885$gmane$org@tjmaciei-m obl5: >> They are binary-compatible. You can use MSVC 2022 with DLLs that were >> built with MSVC 2019. > > Expanding a bit more: there's one build of Qt for both compilers. > Though I guess this isn't obvious to all users, like it seems not to > have been for Bob. I knew about binary compatablilty, it was more a matter of: if Qt is using 2019, I might as well do the same. I have many scripts that assume only one MSVC version is in play, but most of those can probably be fixed by making a junction (symbolic link) so msvc2019_64 and msvc2022_64 point to the same files. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Friday, 3 February 2023 23:23:23 PST Sze Howe Koh wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 07:51 Bob Babcock wrote: > > Thiago Macieira wrote in > > news:2741742.BEx9A2HvPv__44352.1315975644$1674404321$gmane$org@tjmaciei-m > > > > obl5: > > > So, are you still > > > sticking to older MSVC releases years after there's a new one? Why? > > > > Because when I run the maintnance tool for 6.4.2, I see MSVC 2019, but not > > 2022 (even after installing 2022). > > They are binary-compatible. You can use MSVC 2022 with DLLs that were > built with MSVC 2019. Expanding a bit more: there's one build of Qt for both compilers. Though I guess this isn't obvious to all users, like it seems not to have been for Bob. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 07:51 Bob Babcock wrote: > > Thiago Macieira wrote in > news:2741742.BEx9A2HvPv__44352.1315975644$1674404321$gmane$org@tjmaciei-m > obl5: > > > So, are you still > > sticking to older MSVC releases years after there's a new one? Why? > > Because when I run the maintnance tool for 6.4.2, I see MSVC 2019, but not > 2022 (even after installing 2022). They are binary-compatible. You can use MSVC 2022 with DLLs that were built with MSVC 2019. This has been the case since MSVC 2015: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/porting/binary-compat-2015-2017?view=msvc-170 Regards, Sze-Howe ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
Thiago Macieira wrote in news:2741742.BEx9A2HvPv__44352.1315975644$1674404321$gmane$org@tjmaciei-m obl5: > So, are you still > sticking to older MSVC releases years after there's a new one? Why? Because when I run the maintnance tool for 6.4.2, I see MSVC 2019, but not 2022 (even after installing 2022). ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Thursday, 26 January 2023 21:16:57 PST Hamish Moffatt via Interest wrote: > Is it actually VS 2019 you want to drop, or the v142 toolset and > earlier? Because VS2022 would support compiling with v142 also (and > earlier) but I guess that's what doesn't work. > > We have used older compilers in newer VS in the past, but not for any > good particularly good reason other than being conservative about upgrading. The toolset. I am assuming that everyone who has the new toolset will use it. I understand some of the reasons you may have, but they're rare and very specific; most particularly, they go against upgrading any component at all. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On 26/1/23 03:52, Thiago Macieira wrote: The reason I asked about VS2019, aside from the simple learning of many things I did not anticipate, is that we're seeing it have C++ compliance issues. This is not even C++20 or 17; it's a plain constexpr function that should have worked with C++14. Is it actually VS 2019 you want to drop, or the v142 toolset and earlier? Because VS2022 would support compiling with v142 also (and earlier) but I guess that's what doesn't work. We have used older compilers in newer VS in the past, but not for any good particularly good reason other than being conservative about upgrading. Hamish ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Wednesday, 25 January 2023 08:33:59 PST Michael Jackson wrote: > Like someone else said, it becomes inertia. Our tools work on a daily basis > and any interruption to those tools becomes a productivity issue. Small > productivity losses I can handle, losing multiple days to an "upgrade" just > isn't on my list of things to do. I understand. In my $DAYJOB at Intel, the product I work on stayed on GCC 10 for way too long, for many reasons, including in particular the fact that there are builds of that for CentOS 7, but not later versions. When it came time to upgrade to GCC 12, it wasn't just an update; we had to redevelop the entire way we create the containers that are used to build the software. Of course, now once burned thrice shy, I've since upgraded the compiler several times by simply modifying a line a Dockerfile. > I feel like dropping VS2017 support is a no-brainer. Dropping macOS Catalina > support is also a no brainer. Not sure about VS2019 as according to > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/visual-studio-2019 the > support will end in 2024 and has extended support until 2029. And that is > assuming VS 2019 16.11 and nothing earlier. VS2017 is already gone. The reason I asked about VS2019, aside from the simple learning of many things I did not anticipate, is that we're seeing it have C++ compliance issues. This is not even C++20 or 17; it's a plain constexpr function that should have worked with C++14. Given the answers so far, we can probably get away with dropping it for 6.6. Otherwise, I'll just implement "if VS2017, use slow code". After all, if you wanted performance, you wouldn't be using VS in the first place. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
Actually, on macOS, XCode is specifically tied to a version of macOS. There is a short period of time where a version of Xcode will overlap 2 versions of macOS (usually the current and one version back). So for me, still back on macOS Catalina (out of choice) I use Xcode 12.4 which also works on my macOS 11 Big Sur machine. Current Xcode version is 14.2 and ONLY works on macOS 12.5 and above. So I am locked out of the "official" Apple compilers without having to move up to a newer macOS. (That is a different conversation). We also provided our own build machines for Azure (self hosted agents) and moving up compilers usually involves spending a few days updating those build machines with new versions of the libraries (all built using the new compilers). This used to be easy when Qt offered the offline installers but now I get to wait through the several gigabyte download on a dozen machines over a 100Mbps connection. And now I get the fun of building Qt 5.15.[3.4.5.6.7.8.9...] because those installers are not even around through the maintenance tools for open source developers. For the Visual Studio compilers, the same thing applies. First versions of any piece of software is usually a train wreck. I'm not into beta testing other peoples software, especially compilers. I'll wait till the dust settles before moving up. Again, for us it is a matter of finding a time when we are not crushed with deadlines to have the developer move up compilers, deal with all of the incompatibilities just introduced by said new compiler, and then get back to work. Like someone else said, it becomes inertia. Our tools work on a daily basis and any interruption to those tools becomes a productivity issue. Small productivity losses I can handle, losing multiple days to an "upgrade" just isn't on my list of things to do. I feel like dropping VS2017 support is a no-brainer. Dropping macOS Catalina support is also a no brainer. Not sure about VS2019 as according to https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/visual-studio-2019 the support will end in 2024 and has extended support until 2029. And that is assuming VS 2019 16.11 and nothing earlier. Just my 2 cents -- Mike Jackson On 1/23/23, 6:05 PM, "Interest on behalf of Thiago Macieira" wrote: On Monday, 23 January 2023 09:19:07 PST Scott Bloom wrote: > One of the limiting factors in general, is we would prefer NOT to have 2 > compilers with very different c++ support. There have a been a number of " > C++11/14/17 etc" that have been partially implemented on one, and not on > the other. Unfortunately, NOT always protected by the "version switch". > > The biggest one that hit me, is std::make_unique which didn't exist on g++ > but did on windows. So if used, when you go build on linux, you have to > clean up your code. There have been some others through the years. > > So in general, we try to keep their abilities as close as possible, Thank you Scott, but you've answered the inverse of my question. You're talking about the ability to write code given a compiler you can't move from and what one needs to do to keep that working. I am asking why people are staying with the older one, if the new one is available and shouldn't (in theory) produce a compatibility burden with already-compiled code. On Linux, people generally use the compiler that their Linux distribution offers and many of them don't upgrade to another GCC major version after the initial release (CentOS/RHEL with the devtoolset being a notable exception). This implies to us that if a Linux distribution from 2018 is still a valid development environment, then GCC 8 must work too. But on Windows and on macOS, the compiler updates are disconnected from the OS version. Hence the question: if you can install compiler version Y using the same mechanism you installed version X, why won't you? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
Hi, On 25/01/2023 14:44, Adam Light wrote: What I also didn't know is that if you've purchased the licence for a given VS, you're not entitled to the upgrade to the next. I know this is how it used to be with Microsoft Office back in the 90s and even the old Visual Studios, but I thought this practice was long gone. You can upgrade Windows for free, after all. There are a lot of different licensing schemes for Visual Studio, so I would not be surprised if what you said is true for some people. I purchased a single-user perpetual license to VS 2019 through the Microsoft Store several years ago and was not eligible for a free upgrade (or low-cost upgrade) to VS 2022, as far as I could tell. In fact, after VS 2022 was officially released, it was not even possible to purchase a perpetual license on the MS store. I had to file a bug report with the VS project and have that percolate through several layers of bureaucracy for about a month before I could even give MS my money. I think MS wants people to buy their subscriptions, not perpetual licenses. Our product's release cycle is around 3 years, and we use the same version of Visual Studio and Qt for that period, so the subscription doesn't pay off for us. If you have more than a couple of developers using Microsoft tools it might be worth becoming a "Microsoft Solution Partner" (or something similar) - it usually starts making sense if you have 10-15 devs in the company. AFAIR two developers need to get a Microsoft Certificate (if you are consulting or target the MS product market it makes for nice advertisement anyway) and I don't know how much you have to pay for the "privilege" of calling yourself a "partner". It comes with a certain number of licenses for all the fancy Enterprisy tools (some are worth it, others are worse sh*t), including all versions of Visual Studio. With a setup like this you can simply assign an admin to watch over the budget of licenses and skip the bureaucrazy. Konrad OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 4:41 PM Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Ah, interesting. I'd completely forgotten Visual Studio is a paid product > (who > had the bright idea of charging for the ability to develop software for a > given OS? Don't they want to enrich said OS with more software?). I only > use > the Build Tools because I only build SW on Windows from the command line, > after pushing there from my Linux development machine. > > According to https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/downloads/?q=build+tools, "These Build Tools [...]. Use of this tool requires a valid Visual Studio license." In my experience, it is possible to install the IDE (which also installs the build tools) and continue using the build tools even after the IDE will refuse to run because your demo period has expired. We don't use the IDE for much other than debugging minidumps we get from customers when our application crashes, so perhaps we could just download the build tools and not pay the license fee, but it's a bit ambiguous to me. > I am wondering if the VS 2019 IDE can drive builds with the VS 2022 Build > Tools. > > I don't have VS 2019 installed so I don't know. I do have 2017 installed and tried to check, but my trial period has expired so I can't use the IDE enough to actually test this. > What I also didn't know is that if you've purchased the licence for a > given > VS, you're not entitled to the upgrade to the next. I know this is how it > used > to be with Microsoft Office back in the 90s and even the old Visual > Studios, but > I thought this practice was long gone. You can upgrade Windows for free, > after > all. > There are a lot of different licensing schemes for Visual Studio, so I would not be surprised if what you said is true for some people. I purchased a single-user perpetual license to VS 2019 through the Microsoft Store several years ago and was not eligible for a free upgrade (or low-cost upgrade) to VS 2022, as far as I could tell. In fact, after VS 2022 was officially released, it was not even possible to purchase a perpetual license on the MS store. I had to file a bug report with the VS project and have that percolate through several layers of bureaucracy for about a month before I could even give MS my money. I think MS wants people to buy their subscriptions, not perpetual licenses. Our product's release cycle is around 3 years, and we use the same version of Visual Studio and Qt for that period, so the subscription doesn't pay off for us. Adam ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 08:45:25 PST Adam Light wrote: > Outside of inertia, which is powerful, one consideration may be cost. While > there is a free "Community" version of Visual Studio, it places pretty > strict limitations on the kind of companies that can use it. A single user > perpetual license is about $500 USD and, in my experience, not particularly > easy to purchase for a small team. One can purchase a license for > themselves through the Microsoft store, but as far as I could tell > purchasing a small handful of licenses requires each person to do the > purchase themselves (and deal with getting reimbursed) or you must go > through a reseller, and we haven't been able to find a reseller > willing/able to sell us perpetual copies (I'm not sure how hard our > purchasing pers. Ah, interesting. I'd completely forgotten Visual Studio is a paid product (who had the bright idea of charging for the ability to develop software for a given OS? Don't they want to enrich said OS with more software?). I only use the Build Tools because I only build SW on Windows from the command line, after pushing there from my Linux development machine. I think the Build Tools are free, but as in my earlier reply to Scott, I have no idea if you can use the toolchain of one version in an older IDE. I know the newer VS bundles have the older toolchains; that's not what I am asking. I am wondering if the VS 2019 IDE can drive builds with the VS 2022 Build Tools. What I also didn't know is that if you've purchased the licence for a given VS, you're not entitled to the upgrade to the next. I know this is how it used to be with Microsoft Office back in the 90s and even the old Visual Studios, but I thought this practice was long gone. You can upgrade Windows for free, after all. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 3:06 PM Thiago Macieira wrote: > But on Windows and on macOS, the compiler updates are disconnected from > the OS > version. Hence the question: if you can install compiler version Y using > the > same mechanism you installed version X, why won't you? > > Outside of inertia, which is powerful, one consideration may be cost. While there is a free "Community" version of Visual Studio, it places pretty strict limitations on the kind of companies that can use it. A single user perpetual license is about $500 USD and, in my experience, not particularly easy to purchase for a small team. One can purchase a license for themselves through the Microsoft store, but as far as I could tell purchasing a small handful of licenses requires each person to do the purchase themselves (and deal with getting reimbursed) or you must go through a reseller, and we haven't been able to find a reseller willing/able to sell us perpetual copies (I'm not sure how hard our purchasing pers. With that said, we have upgraded to VS 2022 and find it much better than 2017 (we skipped 2019), and we would not object to dropping 2019. Adam ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Monday, 23 January 2023 16:48:43 PST Tony Rietwyk wrote: > The team I'm working with have been keeping up with the latest VS > version - mainly for the security fixes and new C++11/17/20 features > available in Qt 5.15. But VS2022 introduced changes to the enum > handling last year, which has made Intellisense useless for them - > especially class enum's. Made worse since we had previously changed > many of our enum's to class ones. :O( Interesting, thank you. The issue here is a UX regression in the IDE that accompanies the compiler. I hadn't considered that. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
Hi Thiago, The team I'm working with have been keeping up with the latest VS version - mainly for the security fixes and new C++11/17/20 features available in Qt 5.15. But VS2022 introduced changes to the enum handling last year, which has made Intellisense useless for them - especially class enum's. Made worse since we had previously changed many of our enum's to class ones. :O( I doubt that would stop anyone upgrading, but maybe there are other non-compiler reasons for staying with older versions of dev environments. Regards, Tony On 23/01/2023 3:18 am, Thiago Macieira wrote: In this case, MSVC 2019, which is still supported. I'm trying to understand why people don't upgrade their Visual Studios. In the past, they used to use different and binary-incompatible VC runtimes, so large projects often needed to stick to a single version because of different teams needing to otherwise have a flag day. But that hasn't been the case since MSVC 2015. So, are you still sticking to older MSVC releases years after there's a new one? Why? ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Monday, 23 January 2023 09:19:07 PST Scott Bloom wrote: > One of the limiting factors in general, is we would prefer NOT to have 2 > compilers with very different c++ support. There have a been a number of " > C++11/14/17 etc" that have been partially implemented on one, and not on > the other. Unfortunately, NOT always protected by the "version switch". > > The biggest one that hit me, is std::make_unique which didn't exist on g++ > but did on windows. So if used, when you go build on linux, you have to > clean up your code. There have been some others through the years. > > So in general, we try to keep their abilities as close as possible, Thank you Scott, but you've answered the inverse of my question. You're talking about the ability to write code given a compiler you can't move from and what one needs to do to keep that working. I am asking why people are staying with the older one, if the new one is available and shouldn't (in theory) produce a compatibility burden with already-compiled code. On Linux, people generally use the compiler that their Linux distribution offers and many of them don't upgrade to another GCC major version after the initial release (CentOS/RHEL with the devtoolset being a notable exception). This implies to us that if a Linux distribution from 2018 is still a valid development environment, then GCC 8 must work too. But on Windows and on macOS, the compiler updates are disconnected from the OS version. Hence the question: if you can install compiler version Y using the same mechanism you installed version X, why won't you? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
-Original Message- From: Interest On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 9:32 AM To: interest@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why? On Sunday, 22 January 2023 08:33:43 PST coroberti wrote: > On some update of MSVC-2017 to their next minor release, we got their > optimization bug. > It was a waste of time to understand what happened and to work-around it. That just means you had to downgrade to the previous minor version of 2017. That doesn't answer my question, though. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering --- My groups reasoning, other 3rd party libraries. Since MSVC 2015, its been great that a 3rd party library built can be used on newer versions. However, that is not always the case on the linux side. So when a MSVC, gcc, g++ version is moved to, we move very slowly for the new version. One of the limiting factors in general, is we would prefer NOT to have 2 compilers with very different c++ support. There have a been a number of " C++11/14/17 etc" that have been partially implemented on one, and not on the other. Unfortunately, NOT always protected by the "version switch". The biggest one that hit me, is std::make_unique which didn't exist on g++ but did on windows. So if used, when you go build on linux, you have to clean up your code. There have been some others through the years. So in general, we try to keep their abilities as close as possible, Scott ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
Den sön 22 jan. 2023 kl 23:08 skrev Elvis Stansvik : > > > MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why? > > Yes, using VS 2019. > > I can only speak for us, but we simply haven't had any really > compelling reason to upgrade our compiler. > > Turning the question around: If you have no need for the > features/improvements that a newer compiler would bring, why would you > upgrade it? It's a non-zero amount of work to switch. > > In many places, if you can't make a (somewhat) direct connection to > something revenue-generating, such as a client case, it's not going to > get done unless there's unexpected extra time available. > > That said, we would have no problem with Qt dropping support for VS > 2019. We are using a somewhat old 5.12 version of Qt anyway, mostly > for same reason as we are not using latest compiler. > > So perhaps better wait for someone that is staying on top of the > latest Qt to give their view. I can imagine that there that do that to *that there are those that do that > get improvements/bug fixes, but which rarely update their compiler. > It's quite rare to be affected by a compiler bug after all. > > Elvis > > Den sön 22 jan. 2023 kl 17:19 skrev Thiago Macieira > : > > > > In this case, MSVC 2019, which is still supported. > > > > I'm trying to understand why people don't upgrade their Visual Studios. In > > the > > past, they used to use different and binary-incompatible VC runtimes, so > > large > > projects often needed to stick to a single version because of different > > teams > > needing to otherwise have a flag day. > > > > But that hasn't been the case since MSVC 2015. So, are you still sticking to > > older MSVC releases years after there's a new one? Why? > > -- > > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > > Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering > > ___ > > Interest mailing list > > Interest@qt-project.org > > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
> MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why? Yes, using VS 2019. I can only speak for us, but we simply haven't had any really compelling reason to upgrade our compiler. Turning the question around: If you have no need for the features/improvements that a newer compiler would bring, why would you upgrade it? It's a non-zero amount of work to switch. In many places, if you can't make a (somewhat) direct connection to something revenue-generating, such as a client case, it's not going to get done unless there's unexpected extra time available. That said, we would have no problem with Qt dropping support for VS 2019. We are using a somewhat old 5.12 version of Qt anyway, mostly for same reason as we are not using latest compiler. So perhaps better wait for someone that is staying on top of the latest Qt to give their view. I can imagine that there that do that to get improvements/bug fixes, but which rarely update their compiler. It's quite rare to be affected by a compiler bug after all. Elvis Den sön 22 jan. 2023 kl 17:19 skrev Thiago Macieira : > > In this case, MSVC 2019, which is still supported. > > I'm trying to understand why people don't upgrade their Visual Studios. In the > past, they used to use different and binary-incompatible VC runtimes, so large > projects often needed to stick to a single version because of different teams > needing to otherwise have a flag day. > > But that hasn't been the case since MSVC 2015. So, are you still sticking to > older MSVC releases years after there's a new one? Why? > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering > ___ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Sunday, 22 January 2023 08:33:43 PST coroberti wrote: > On some update of MSVC-2017 to their next minor release, we got their > optimization bug. > It was a waste of time to understand what happened and to work-around it. That just means you had to downgrade to the previous minor version of 2017. That doesn't answer my question, though. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
Hi, On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 14:28, Philippe wrote: > > > Medical devices/software would need to go through a whole set of > > revalidation if the compiler changes > > This is understandable, but then logic would like it to be the same for > the use of any new version of the Qt framework. That's a valid remark, updating Qt means there should be no issue in updating the compiler at the same time. -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer https://perezmeyer.com.ar/ ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
> Medical devices/software would need to go through a whole set of > revalidation if the compiler changes This is understandable, but then logic would like it to be the same for the use of any new version of the Qt framework. Personnaly, I find more bugs in Qt releases than in the compiler releases. ...Qt 6.6 should not be concerned by old compilers. Philippe ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 13:18, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > In this case, MSVC 2019, which is still supported. > > I'm trying to understand why people don't upgrade their Visual Studios. In the > past, they used to use different and binary-incompatible VC runtimes, so large > projects often needed to stick to a single version because of different teams > needing to otherwise have a flag day. > > But that hasn't been the case since MSVC 2015. So, are you still sticking to > older MSVC releases years after there's a new one? Why? Medical devices/software would need to go through a whole set of revalidation if the compiler changes. On that field changes are complicated. ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
Re: [Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
Hi Thiago, On some update of MSVC-2017 to their next minor release, we got their optimization bug. It was a waste of time to understand what happened and to work-around it. jm2c Kind regards, Robert On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 6:19 PM Thiago Macieira wrote: > > In this case, MSVC 2019, which is still supported. > > I'm trying to understand why people don't upgrade their Visual Studios. In the > past, they used to use different and binary-incompatible VC runtimes, so large > projects often needed to stick to a single version because of different teams > needing to otherwise have a flag day. > > But that hasn't been the case since MSVC 2015. So, are you still sticking to > older MSVC releases years after there's a new one? Why? > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering > ___ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
[Interest] MSVC not-the-latest: are you using it? why?
In this case, MSVC 2019, which is still supported. I'm trying to understand why people don't upgrade their Visual Studios. In the past, they used to use different and binary-incompatible VC runtimes, so large projects often needed to stick to a single version because of different teams needing to otherwise have a flag day. But that hasn't been the case since MSVC 2015. So, are you still sticking to older MSVC releases years after there's a new one? Why? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
