Oliver Stöneberg
Oliver Stöneberg
Yeah, the changes unfortunately don't seem to have that much effect. I will take another look in the next few days. Let's leave it open for now. Still Clang profits...
Hitting the known limitations of GCC 4.8 with initializer lists...
FYI I did some short profiling and I did not see any differences. So this is just about (c)leaner code.
I will also check if tickets need to be filed about the reduced variable scope. The inconsistent copy vs. move in some of the calls in `valueflow.cop` will be cleaned...
This is ready for merge now.
I would prefer if we would define some target platforms and derive the minimum of a supported version from that - even if those might be already EOL or EOS....
CC'ing @danmar @amai2012 @versat @orbitcowboy @pfultz2 @aggro80 @KenPatrickLehrmann @Ken-Patrick @rikardfalkeborn @chrchr-github @guillaume-uH57J9
> Imho it's ok to drop older VS support when we can't test it in CI anymore. @danmar I think it is feasible to support the two latest versions (that's...
> the users I have talked with can't upgrade so easily. especially upgrading a production system is not reasonable. If such cases come up in the future it would be...
> If we can somehow add a CI pipeline that uses GCC 4.6 and it's not too much work to make that happy then I would like to stay with...