On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Jonathan Kew wrote: > While I sympathize with the concern that "supporting more than one > compiler is a maintenance burden", this still leaves me feeling a little > uneasy. Ensuring that our code builds successfully with multiple > compilers is a useful way to keep us from becoming dependent on quirks > of a particular tool, and different compilers may provide different > (valid, useful) diagnostics that we should not simply ignore. > > Our C/C++ code should (IMO) be standard and portable enough to build > with any modern, mainstream C++ compiler; writing code for a clang > monoculture feels wrong, a bit like building websites for a Blink > monoculture...
I understand your point of view but I don't think that ensuring that we continue to support a closed-source commercial compiler from Microsoft purely for these reasons is something we should expend resources on. We don't support building with Intel's C compiler and that has not historically been something we've worried about. -Ted _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
