Add Visual Studio 2017 to AppVeyor #233
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
At the moment VS 2017 requires choosing a separate build image. See https://www.appveyor.com/docs/build-environment/
|
Looks like the latest build failed on clang. Once that's resolved, feel free to push it to master (or I can do it if you prefer). |
|
Realized that's for a different branch; pushed this one to master. Thanks :) |
|
好 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It looks like squash builds with VS 2017 on AppVeyor now, the only change needed was to select a specific build image with the new compiler on. A few things to decide before adding this:
For now I commented out VS 2013, do we wish to continue having it in the build matrix? On one hand it's getting old, and fewer configurations means faster CI runs, on the other hand some things might break on older compilers moving forward. What do you think?
Also, as mentioned in #185, Clang/C2 appears to be dead, so perhaps we should remove the commented out section for it?