I think if we want to revisit this in the future it should be an explicit change.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 at 15:17 Guido van Rossum <gvanros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I want it to list specific versions that are known to be good right >> now, so we can point fingers appropriately when a regression happens. > > > OK, then we could pin it to MSVC 2016, gcc 6.1, and clang 3.8.1 which are > the latest releases (unless I'm missing a compiler we all feel like we > should officially support). > >> >> If you have to ask Steve what version he used, ask! > > > I know of what compiler has been used by Steve, I was just trying to give a > very loose example of how it could be phrased if we wanted a shifting window > of support based on what was available at the time of release for Python > instead of the "what was available Aug 2016" static specification that you > said you wanted. > >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 at 15:07 Guido van Rossum <gvanros...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> That sounds fine to me, but we need to list specific compiler versions. >> > >> > >> > Would you want this to be static (e.g. MSVC 2016 until we choose to >> > update >> > to support C11), or would you want it to vary based on what's available >> > when >> > the current/last Python is/was released (e.g. whatever version of MSVC >> > Steve >> > uses to build the binaries for 3.5 or 3.6 in our current case)? >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> >> > Where did we finally land on this discussion? Do we want to update >> >> > PEP 7 >> >> > to >> >> > say that starting in 3.6 we may use C99 features common to all >> >> > supported >> >> > compilers and list what those compilers are (i.e. gcc, clang, and >> >> > MSVC)? >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 at 01:28 Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess that as usual, we should use the "common denominator" of all >> >> >> compilers supported by CPython. For example, if MSVC doesn't support >> >> >> a >> >> >> feature, we should not use it in CPython. >> >> >> >> >> >> In practice, it's easy to check if a feature is supported or not: we >> >> >> have buildbots building Python at each commit. It was very common to >> >> >> get a compilation error only on MSVC when a variable was defined in >> >> >> the middle of a function. We are now using >> >> >> -Werror=declaration-after-statement with GCC because of MSVC! >> >> >> >> >> >> Maybe GCC has an option to ask for the subset of the C99 standard >> >> >> compatible with MSVC? Something like "-std=c99 -pedantic"? >> >> >> >> >> >> Note: I tried -pedantic, GCC emits a lot of warnings on code which >> >> >> looks valid and/or is protected with #ifdef for features specific to >> >> >> GCC like computed goto. >> >> >> >> >> >> Victor >> >> >> >> >> >> 2016-06-07 21:45 GMT+02:00 Guido van Rossum <gvanros...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> > We should definitely keep supporting MSVC. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > --Guido (mobile) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Jun 7, 2016 12:39 PM, "Sturla Molden" <sturla.mol...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Is it worth to support a compiler that in 2016 doesn't support >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > C >> >> >> >> > standard released in 1999, 17 years ago? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> MSVC only supports C99 when its needed for C++11 or some MS >> >> >> >> extension >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> C. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Is it worth supporting MSVC? If not, we have Intel C, Clang and >> >> >> >> Cygwin >> >> >> >> GCC >> >> >> >> are the viable options we have on Windows (and perhaps >> >> >> >> Embarcadero, >> >> >> >> but >> >> >> >> I >> >> >> >> haven't used C++ builder for a very long time). Even MinGW does >> >> >> >> not >> >> >> >> fully >> >> >> >> support C99, because it depends on Microsoft's CRT. If we think >> >> >> >> MSVC >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> MinGW are worth supporting, we cannot just use C99 >> >> >> >> indiscriminantly. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> Python-Dev mailing list >> >> >> >> Python-Dev@python.org >> >> >> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev >> >> >> >> Unsubscribe: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> > Python-Dev mailing list >> >> >> > Python-Dev@python.org >> >> >> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev >> >> >> > Unsubscribe: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/victor.stinner%40gmail.com >> >> >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Python-Dev mailing list >> >> >> Python-Dev@python.org >> >> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev >> >> >> Unsubscribe: >> >> >> >> >> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) >> >> >> >> -- >> --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
