"Official" Windows toolset - just to make sure

In the current git repository, with latest “stable” PV version 5.5.2, I see that the following versions are recommended for Windows:

MSVC 2015 (meaning: toolset 140)
Qt whatever is supported with MSVC 2015

I am working on a PV derived custom application including “superbuild” and I remember having problems with MSVC 2015, but forgot what exactly was the problem. I only remember that going back to MSVC 2013 (toolset 120) solved the problems. However, this was also with an earlier PV version, 5.5.0 at the time. I do not remember if actually MSVC 2013 was at the time “recommended for Windows” !?

Anyway, because of some missing functionality in MSVC 2013 (C++11 not being fully supported) I would like to switch back to MSVC 2015, including an update also to PV 5.5.2 and switching from Qt 5.9.1/MSVC2013 to the same version with MSVC2015.

I don’t want to run into trouble again, so I simply want to hear some “authority” whether MSVC 2015 / toolset 140 is now really the “official status” that is also used at Kitware etc.!?

If this is the case I would “dare” the step again!

Regards, Cornelis

5.5 is not supported with MSVC2015 without a slew of changes that went into ParaView superbuild master. 5.6 is supported with MSVC2015. In fact, our officially distributed binaries for 5.6-RC1 (and the upcoming ones) are made with MSVC 2015 (in reality, it’s MSVC 2017 with MSVC2015 toolchain).

Thanks for the explanation! So I have basically 3 options for the moment:

  1. stay where I am - with PV and superbuild at 5.5.0 and MSVC2013
  2. update PV to the latest stable version 5.5.2, and make sure also the SB is at the latest level - then switch to MSVC2015
  3. update PV to 5.6 RC1, do the same with the SB as well, and then also I could switch to MSVC2015

While 1) has for me some other disadvantages (even if it is definitely the most “straightforward” solution at the moment), I am asking myself which of the two other options is more reasonable: 2) is probably “more stable”, but I may run into troubles with this “slew of changes” that may or may not work properly with 5.5.2, while 3) is more “experimental”…

My gut feeling would be that 3) is the better option, assuming that most of the changes are in some highly advanced 3D graphics areas which I may not even touch with my projects - with a little bit of luck…