2012/7/17 Kohei Yoshida <kohei.yosh...@gmail.com>: > On 07/17/2012 05:11 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote: >> >> So, as long as we require to build LO with MSVC, we can revisit the >> question >> of hard-depending on C++11 in, uhm, let's be optimistic and say 3 years. >> IOW, >> we can probably get there faster by ditching backwards ABI compatibility >> with >> LO4 and switching to a different compiler for Windows. > > > What I'm curious is how the binaries generated from different compilers > compare on Windows. If their performances are more or less comparable, then > I could care less whether we stick with MSVC or gcc (or clang if it's > available on Windows). But if MSVC still produces more optimized binaries, > then I would be reluctant to support switching to a different compiler > (though my voice is only one head count, easily overruled by the majority > votes when it comes down to it). > > Kohei >
Clang is not directly available as a binary for windows, however they have a small tutorial how to build it from source at <http://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html#buildWindows>. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
