On 11 July 2014 16:46, Tomaz Canabrava <tcanabr...@kde.org> wrote: > > Em 11/07/2014 10:05, "Lubomir I. Ivanov" <neolit...@gmail.com> escreveu: > > >> >> On 11 July 2014 14:55, Anton Lundin <gla...@acc.umu.se> wrote: >> > On 11 July, 2014 - Lubomir I. Ivanov wrote: >> > >> >> On 11 July 2014 10:13, Anton Lundin <gla...@acc.umu.se> wrote: >> >> > glance> for (int i=0;i<3;i++) ? >> >> >> >> for that to work on older versions e.g. MSVC 2003, /Tp has to be used >> >> (like jeff mentioned, we can mark the input to be C++) and then extern >> >> "C" wrapping would be needed to preserve the binary interface. >> >> >> >> on even older versions like MSVC 1998, /Tp exists but the actual >> >> intermix feature from c99 is a bit messed up. the lexical scanner does >> >> recognize it, but then it assigns a non-local scope to the iterator. >> >> so you can do things like: >> >> >> >> for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) >> >> puts("stuff"); >> >> i = 0; // <--- >> >> >> >> i would advice against this particular feature if targeting older >> >> MSVC, but for third party source projects i usually follow their usage >> >> of "for" loops. >> >> for my own managed projects, this: >> >> >> >> int i = 0; >> >> while (i < ...) {... i++ } >> >> >> >> remained as a habit. >> >> >> > >> > Msvc 2013 seems to get it right, and i can gladly argue that we >> > shouldn't support any older Msvc's just for the sake of it. >> > >> > How many do actually build subsurface for windows? You, Dirk and maybe 1 >> > 2 other dev's, but thats probably it. Dirk uses mingw, and you would >> > know to use msvc 2013, so it doesn't feel like a show stopper for me =) >> > >> > But, if we as always, if we know that things break with older msvc's we >> > should document it. >> > >> >> well, my opinion is that mingw is sufficient of a complier for windows >> and in the case of subsurface. >> MSVC support would be a time consuming exercise with no real benefits. > > Msvc generates faster executables on win32 than gcc, this is a benefit. >
i was going to mention that as it used to be my own experience from the early 2000+ years, but then looked at this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14734068/mingw-4-7-2-vs-visual-c-11-0-2012-benchmark so unless we measure it, it's arguable. lubomir -- _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list subsurface@hohndel.org http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface