[Qt-creator] Is MSVC on Windows supported?

[Coda Highland]

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:35 AM,  <kai.koehne at nokia.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: qt-creator-bounces+kai.koehne=nokia.com at qt-project.org [mailto:qt-
>> creator-bounces+kai.koehne=nokia.com at qt-project.org] On Behalf Of ext
>> Coda Highland
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 4:19 PM
>> To: Bornemann Joerg (Nokia-MP/Berlin)
>> Cc: qt-creator at qt-project.org
>> Subject: Re: [Qt-creator] Is MSVC on Windows supported?
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Joerg Bornemann
>> <joerg.bornemann at nokia.com> wrote:
>> > On 05/09/2012 13:58, ext Christian Kandeler wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't understand the logic of this last sentence. People who use Qt
>> >> won't use C++11?
>> >
>> > This implication was not intended.
>> > Let there be program P, with P entirely based on Qt. Let F_P be the
>> > set of C++ features P uses, F_MS be the set of C++ feature MSVC
>> > supports and F_GW the set of C++ features MinGW supports.
>> > Proposition: F_P = F_P \cap F_GW \cap F_MS \Rightarrow there's no
>> > reason to build P using MinGW on Windows.
>> >
>>
>> Who cares about C++ features? gcc 4.7 is a better compiler than MSVC2010,
>> so unless Microsoft has gotten off their collective behinds with 2012 it's likely
>> that gcc 4.7 is going to be a better compiler than that, too. The problem is with
>> MinGW's standard libraries, not with the compiler.
>
> Define 'better' . I'm right now having the joy to more or less continuously compile Qt 5 with different MinGW variants, and it's really, really, dog slow.
>
> (MSVC is slow too, compared to gcc on Linux. But MinGW gcc takes slowness really to the next level...)
>
> Kai
>
> who is aware that this is now pretty off topic ...
>
>> /s/ Adam
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qt-creator mailing list
>> Qt-creator at qt-project.org
>> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator

MinGW is definitely a SLOWER compiler than MSVC, but MinGW gcc 4.7's
optimizer is a lot smarter than MSVC's. (It optimizes a few cases
better than icc, too, but icc does a few other things better than
gcc.) Its libraries are where the problem really is, since the MinGW
libraries haven't seen a whole lot of maintenance but the compiler has
benefited from gcc's cross-platform development.

It's a big change from before gcc 4.5. The stable version of MinGW was
pretty bad before then, but 4.5, 4.6, and then 4.7 each saw major
improvements.

I wish I could find the study I was reading a month or so ago doing
comparisons of most of the current C++ compilers for Windows; it was
comparing MSVC, gcc, icc, Digital Mars, and a couple others, and it
was incredibly detailed about the assembly language breakdown of what
the compilers were doing, but my browser history doesn't seem to go
back that far.

/s/ Adam