On quarta-feira, 12 de junho de 2013 11.31.33, Jake Thomas Petroules wrote:
> According to Xcode the default is libstdc++ anyways.
Not to us.
The default is libc++ because C++11 is enabled by default if supported,
because clang is the default and clang does support C++11.
--
Thiago Macieira - t
According to Xcode the default is libstdc++ anyways.
--
Jake Petroules
Chief Technology Officer
Petroules Corporation · www.petroules.com
Email: jake.petrou...@petroules.com
On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 12 de junho de 2013 13.38.19, Bruning Michael wro
On quarta-feira, 12 de junho de 2013 13.38.19, Bruning Michael wrote:
> As far as I can see, libc++ was never officially supported by Apple on 10.6
> and to get it built and running from sources, there's some handwork
> required and things might and probably will break without prior notice. So
> I
On terça-feira, 11 de junho de 2013 09.26.23, Ziller Eike wrote:
> When I build Qt 5.1 in the current standard configuration (e.g. with c++11
> and therefore with libc++) I still get QtScript and QtWebKit built against
> libstdc++ and with deployment target 10.6, even though the rest of Qt is
> bui
On segunda-feira, 10 de junho de 2013 10.30.12, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> Wait, are you talking about something else here? The QtLocation issue
> had nothing to do with CONFIG -= qt. It was caused by a part of Qt not
> picking up the generic Qt build config (that enables C++11 if enabled by
> config
On sexta-feira, 7 de junho de 2013 18.50.52, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Friday 07 June 2013 10:22:56 Koehne Kai wrote:
> > My suggestion:
> > - Leave Qt 5.1.0 as it is right now, move on with the release process
> > - Investigate providing an additional binary installer with Qt compiled
> >
> >
On sexta-feira, 7 de junho de 2013 10.22.56, Koehne Kai wrote:
> Situation with Qt 5.1 as it is
> - Binary installer is compiled with OS X 10.7
> - You cannot deploy with them to 10.6
> - If you want to deploy to 10.6 without QtWebKit you have to compile Qt
> yourself, on OS X 10.6, or on OS X 1
On quinta-feira, 6 de junho de 2013 11.22.28, Koehne Kai wrote:
> > That means we need to change the Qt 5.1 RC1 build scripts to pass
> > -no-c++11.
> Isn't the lower risk approach to just revert the change in the release
> branch? That is, we'd have the same behavior as with 5.0. I understand that
On quinta-feira, 6 de junho de 2013 07.52.53, Ziller Eike wrote:
> Just for clarification, the default mkspec of Qt 5 on Mac is clang (without
> libc++), not gcc/g++ .
The default mkspec on Mac is now clang *with* libc++.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect -
On terça-feira, 4 de junho de 2013 15.55.10, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> As of 3d0a60aaa4077a8 in Qt 5.2
That change is in 5.1.
That means we need to change the Qt 5.1 RC1 build scripts to pass -no-c++11.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Te
On quarta-feira, 5 de junho de 2013 15.49.53, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> On 6/5/13 12:49 , Gustavsen Richard wrote:
> >> From reading this thread, it seems that 10.6 support is pretty
> >> important. But right now you need to build Qt from sources yourself
> >> to get it.
> >
> > Is this good enough?
> The migration from OS X 10.5/6 to newer versions looks steadier than
> for Windows for us at least. On the other hand, Apple makes it
> somewhat harder to support old versions of OS X compared to Windows.
>
The analogy isn't perfect, that's for sure -- Microsoft still supports XP
~11 years late
On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:49 AM, Gustavsen Richard
wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2013, at 5:26 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>> On terça-feira, 4 de junho de 2013 19.32.57, Jake Thomas Petroules wrote:
>>> Well, Xcode 5.0 will be dropping support for GCC, so the only way to target
>>> 10.6 or below will be
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Jake Thomas Petroules <
jake.petrou...@petroules.com> wrote:
> I was being half-sarcastic about 2016, but I do strongly disagree that we
> should indiscriminately support only N number of versions of OS X at a
> time; it's too rigid. I think significantly more weigh
On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:26 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 4 de junho de 2013 19.32.57, Jake Thomas Petroules wrote:
>> Well, Xcode 5.0 will be dropping support for GCC, so the only way to target
>> 10.6 or below will be with clang + libstc++.
>
> Right, I missed that clang + libstdc+
On terça-feira, 4 de junho de 2013 19.32.57, Jake Thomas Petroules wrote:
> Well, Xcode 5.0 will be dropping support for GCC, so the only way to target
> 10.6 or below will be with clang + libstc++.
Right, I missed that clang + libstdc++ was still possible with -no-c++11. It's
a non-default option
> Supporting 10.6 is a huge priority given that version has the largest
> market share of all OS X versions (about 35%). Do we really want to wipe
> out over a third of potential end-users of Qt-based products? Dropping
> support for it at this point is an absolutely terrible idea, and 10.9 is
> no
Well, Xcode 5.0 will be dropping support for GCC, so the only way to target
10.6 or below will be with clang + libstc++.
Supporting 10.6 is a huge priority given that version has the largest market
share of all OS X versions (about 35%). Do we really want to wipe out over a
third of potential e
Hello all
As of 3d0a60aaa4077a8 in Qt 5.2, Qt requires libc++ in order to build on Mac
with clang. That means the minimum deployment target for macx-clang is
Mac OS X 10.7 now.
Question: do we want to keep supporting Mac OS X 10.6? If so, for how long?
And if not, can we drop macx-g++? The g++
19 matches
Mail list logo
