Hi Sean,
On 24/03/15 22:33, Sean Harmer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 24 March 2015 13:09:23 Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I've just build qt5 from git (5.5 branch, commit cdc3bf5) and I'm having
>> problems running some qt3d examples.
>>
>> I've run *all* examples and only a few don
On Tuesday 24 March 2015 20:20:46 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > And all for what? What do people gain by passing -no-c++11 today?
>
> they can (at least hypothetically) test their stuff with older language
> versions without installing a second compiler (and forcing qt to use it,
> which is a roya
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 09:01:43PM +0100, Marc Mutz wrote:
> I've been meaning to look into Gertty, a command-line, offline,
> locally-caching
> client for Gerrit, [...]
> Anyone tried this, yet? It sounds too good to be true...
>
i suspect it won't work with our stone-aged gerrit version (very
Hi,
I've been meaning to look into Gertty, a command-line, offline, locally-caching
client for Gerrit, but since it doesn't install from a .deb on my machine d/t
missing or too old python libs, I'll go ahead and get the word out without
having played with it before:
https://github.com/stackfor
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Fix what? Until someone says this is a problem, we don't know if it is.
Fair enough.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2015 19:40:52 Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 17 March 2015 09:40:08 Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> >> > Opinions for or against?
>> >>
>> >> I think it's a good idea, just like we have QT_USE_QSTRINGBUILDER, we
>> >> could ha
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:55:32AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2015 19:49:41 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > The support is already enabled by default and we'd like to now enable
> > > C++14 too, but I'd like not to add complexity to the configuration by
> > > adding a c++1
>
> More. That's at least a dozen in the configure script, since we need to
> ensure
> someone didn't pass the impossible combination -c++14 -no-c++11.
>
Why not make it a switch for highest language support. Instead of
-no-c++11, make it -c++03. This would allow for adding -c++1z in the
future
On Tuesday 24 March 2015 19:49:41 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > The support is already enabled by default and we'd like to now enable
> > C++14 too, but I'd like not to add complexity to the configuration by
> > adding a c++14/no-c++14 option.
>
> that's how many, five lines of code?
More. That'
On Tuesday 24 March 2015 19:40:32 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > The reason we prefer -std=c++11 is that it allows us to write code that
> > doesn't trip GNU extensions unlikely to be found on MSVC and other
> > compilers.
>
> What is the likelyhood of that? No one is going to a
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:39:17AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 March 2015 11:53:37 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:40:09AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > We'd like to make Qt build unconditionally with the latest version of the
> > > C++ standard that
On Tuesday 24 March 2015 19:40:52 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 March 2015 09:40:08 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> >> > Opinions for or against?
> >>
> >> I think it's a good idea, just like we have QT_USE_QSTRINGBUILDER, we
> >> could have QT_CHECK_ASSERT or something
On Tuesday 24 March 2015 19:20:35 René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Tuesday March 24 2015 13:38:54 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> > Thiago is proposing Option 2. In particular, the emphasized drawback;
> > what is being removed is the ability to *prevent* Qt from enabling C++11
> > / C++14 mode if the compile
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2015 09:40:08 Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> > Opinions for or against?
>>
>> I think it's a good idea, just like we have QT_USE_QSTRINGBUILDER, we
>> could have QT_CHECK_ASSERT or something like that.
>
> Ok, I'll prepare a patch.
Did this happen?
Thank
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> The reason we prefer -std=c++11 is that it allows us to write code that
> doesn't trip GNU extensions unlikely to be found on MSVC and other
> compilers.
What is the likelyhood of that? No one is going to accidentally add an
`__attribute ((strong))` namespace in Qt.
I
On Tuesday March 24 2015 13:38:54 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Thiago is proposing Option 2. In particular, the emphasized drawback;
> what is being removed is the ability to *prevent* Qt from enabling C++11
> / C++14 mode if the compiler supports such a mode. It does *not* mean
> that Qt as a whole w
On Tuesday 24 March 2015 13:38:54 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Option 2: Use the highest available language level support. The drawback
> is that if your compiler supports C++xy, Qt will be built in C++xy mode
> *with no way to force a different mode*.
>
>
> Thiago is proposing Option 2. In particula
On 2015-03-24 12:51, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Tuesday March 24 2015 08:39:17 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>>> if you want to enable support c++11+ by default (it isn't yet?), do it,
>>> but why would you *remove* an option?
>>
>> I want to remove the ability to disable C++11 support.
>>
>> The su
On Tuesday March 24 2015 08:39:17 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > if you want to enable support c++11+ by default (it isn't yet?), do it,
> > but why would you *remove* an option?
>
> I want to remove the ability to disable C++11 support.
>
> The support is already enabled by default and we'd like t
On Tuesday 24 March 2015 11:53:37 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:40:09AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > We'd like to make Qt build unconditionally with the latest version of the
> > C++ standard that is supported by the compiler. That implies removing the
> > -c++11 optio
On 23/03/15 15:04, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> On Sunday 22. March 2015 23.19.15 Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Anyone?
>>
>> This is still happening.
>>
>> If we don't know how to fix this, I propose we make the iOS builds
>> force-pass all tests.
>
> We haven't found the real bug yet, but we've found the
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:42:53PM +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Tuesday March 24 2015 12:01:44 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:29:11PM +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> > > I found the immediate culprit: build/qtbase/qmake/.qmake.stash
> > >
> > you shouldn't even hav
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 08:04:22AM +, Blasche Alexander wrote:
> The BB10 code in Qt is not just the platform plugin. Does this statement
> apply to all other BB10 code throughout other Qt modules? To mind comes
> sensors, qtlocation, bluetooth, nfc and maybe multimedia.
>
> And just out of
Hi all,
Exactly what Bo said.
From time to time I keep getting BB10 related bug reports. It is not a lot,
but they still exist. In additition to that, there have been quite some
changes in Qt (such as the move towards C++11, or the forkfd based QProcess)
that affect QNX/BB10. These involve some t
On Tuesday March 24 2015 12:01:44 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:29:11PM +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> > I found the immediate culprit: build/qtbase/qmake/.qmake.stash
> >
> you shouldn't even have that file. it means you tried to build qmake
> with qmake, which is a bit
Hi Vladimir,
Den 24-03-2015 kl. 10:23 skrev Vladimir Minenko:
> On 24/03/15 09:04, Blasche Alexander wrote:
>> The BB10 code in Qt is not just the platform plugin. Does this
>> statement apply to all other BB10 code throughout other Qt modules?
>
> Following this question from Alex, and actually a
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:29:11PM +0100, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> I found the immediate culprit: build/qtbase/qmake/.qmake.stash
>
you shouldn't even have that file. it means you tried to build qmake
with qmake, which is a bit of a non-starter for hopefully obvious
reasons (the project files are
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:40:09AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> We'd like to make Qt build unconditionally with the latest version of the C++
> standard that is supported by the compiler. That implies removing the -c++11
> option so that the -no-c++11 option goes away too.
>
> Possible drawba
Hi,
On Tuesday 24 March 2015 13:09:23 Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I've just build qt5 from git (5.5 branch, commit cdc3bf5) and I'm having
> problems running some qt3d examples.
>
> I've run *all* examples and only a few don't work:
> - assimp, multiviewport: window content is bla
On 24/03/15 09:04, Blasche Alexander wrote:
> The BB10 code in Qt is not just the platform plugin. Does this
> statement apply to all other BB10 code throughout other Qt modules?
Following this question from Alex, and actually asking more Rafael. What
do you mean exactly with "mark the BlackBerry
On Monday 23 March 2015 15:04:39 Simon Hausmann wrote:
> On Sunday 22. March 2015 23.19.15 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Anyone?
> >
> > This is still happening.
> >
> > If we don't know how to fix this, I propose we make the iOS builds
> > force-pass all tests.
>
> We haven't found the real bug ye
The BB10 code in Qt is not just the platform plugin. Does this statement apply
to all other BB10 code throughout other Qt modules? To mind comes sensors,
qtlocation, bluetooth, nfc and maybe multimedia.
And just out of curiosity, how do I distinguish QNX from BB10.The line is often
very blurry.
32 matches
Mail list logo
