9 ms·

The 'special treatment' isn't technical, it's procedural -- insofar as if, during development for a new release, MSVC were to land some changes that broke GSL,

The 'special treatment' isn't technical, it's procedural -- insofar as if, during development for a new release, MSVC were to land some changes that broke GSL, Microsoft's testing would catch that and ensure that the changes were reverted or fixed to support the latter, prior to shipping. Since they're built as part of the same operating system, they can make sure not to step on one another's toes -- which is not a guarantee that they can make to third-party applications.

Maxatar 1mo ago
I have no idea where you possibly got this idea from since the Github Issues tracker for GSL has numerous instances of new releases of MSVC breaking GSL compilation.
- ranger_danger 1mo ago
  I think they're saying that since they denote specific compiler versions as "officially supported", they can get away with saying the "UB" is not an issue in those versions only because they've already tested its behavior there, and anything else you compile with is untested and unsupported 'here be dragons' land. You may wish they target every possible compiler brand and version, but they are free to disagree with you and only "support" specific ones. Unfortunately this also has the same effect as the Linux kernel now in that it is no longer technically compliant with any C++ (or C) standard.
  - Maxatar 1mo ago
    How does a library writer testing that their library works with a specific version of a compiler that was already released have anything to do with a compiler implementation providing special treatment for that library? Your interpretation contradicts the statement that "during development for a new release, MSVC were to land some changes that broke GSL, Microsoft's testing would catch that and ensure that the changes were reverted or fixed to support the latter, prior to shipping."
    - ranger_danger 1mo ago
      > How does a library writer testing that their library works with a specific version of a compiler that was already released have anything to do with a compiler implementation providing special treatment for that library? Not special treatment for the library, but the library being able to assume that specific UB handling in certain existing compiler versions exists, can be relied on, and is compatible with the library's assumptions of such behavior, as long as those are the only versions they officially "support."
      - Maxatar 1mo ago
        Here is the original statement about special treatment: "It was originally created by Microsoft and as Herb mentions "all our target platforms", so most likely it gets special treatment." My claim is that Microsoft is not giving any special treatment to the GSL... the GSL is written using functionality that is officially available to any third party library, and hence not special. Are you disputing this? If so then what is the special treatment you're claiming that Microsoft is giving to GSL or what special treatment is GSL making use of?
        ranger_danger 1mo ago
        I am not claiming there is any special treatment at all. I think the situation is much simpler: They (Microsoft) test GSL with specific compiler versions to observe how their usage of the UB is treated, and if satisfactory, that compiler version is now "supported" in their eyes. They do not claim to "support" any other version because they have not tested them to know how the UB functions there.
        Maxatar 1mo ago
        What is the relationship between your claim, and the claim I replied to about GSL having special treatment? In other words, why did you reply to me with an interpretation about a post that claimed GSL is afforded special treatment by MSVC if your claim is that GSL does not get any special treatment from MSVC? Did you intend to reply to someone else?
tsimionescu 1mo ago
If you've ever read anything about the internal culture in Microsoft, you'd know this is extremely implausible.

Maxatar 1mo ago

I have no idea where you possibly got this idea from since the Github Issues tracker for GSL has numerous instances of new releases of MSVC breaking GSL compilation.

ranger_danger 1mo ago
I think they're saying that since they denote specific compiler versions as "officially supported", they can get away with saying the "UB" is not an issue in those versions only because they've already tested its behavior there, and anything else you compile with is untested and unsupported 'here be dragons' land. You may wish they target every possible compiler brand and version, but they are free to disagree with you and only "support" specific ones. Unfortunately this also has the same effect as the Linux kernel now in that it is no longer technically compliant with any C++ (or C) standard.
- Maxatar 1mo ago
  How does a library writer testing that their library works with a specific version of a compiler that was already released have anything to do with a compiler implementation providing special treatment for that library? Your interpretation contradicts the statement that "during development for a new release, MSVC were to land some changes that broke GSL, Microsoft's testing would catch that and ensure that the changes were reverted or fixed to support the latter, prior to shipping."
  - ranger_danger 1mo ago
    > How does a library writer testing that their library works with a specific version of a compiler that was already released have anything to do with a compiler implementation providing special treatment for that library? Not special treatment for the library, but the library being able to assume that specific UB handling in certain existing compiler versions exists, can be relied on, and is compatible with the library's assumptions of such behavior, as long as those are the only versions they officially "support."
    - Maxatar 1mo ago
      Here is the original statement about special treatment: "It was originally created by Microsoft and as Herb mentions "all our target platforms", so most likely it gets special treatment." My claim is that Microsoft is not giving any special treatment to the GSL... the GSL is written using functionality that is officially available to any third party library, and hence not special. Are you disputing this? If so then what is the special treatment you're claiming that Microsoft is giving to GSL or what special treatment is GSL making use of?
      - ranger_danger 1mo ago
        I am not claiming there is any special treatment at all. I think the situation is much simpler: They (Microsoft) test GSL with specific compiler versions to observe how their usage of the UB is treated, and if satisfactory, that compiler version is now "supported" in their eyes. They do not claim to "support" any other version because they have not tested them to know how the UB functions there.
        Maxatar 1mo ago
        What is the relationship between your claim, and the claim I replied to about GSL having special treatment? In other words, why did you reply to me with an interpretation about a post that claimed GSL is afforded special treatment by MSVC if your claim is that GSL does not get any special treatment from MSVC? Did you intend to reply to someone else?

tsimionescu 1mo ago

If you've ever read anything about the internal culture in Microsoft, you'd know this is extremely implausible.