On Friday 30 October 2015 15:29:33 James McDonnell wrote:
> >The important thing is whether the Cxx11 tests pass. Can you confirm they
> >did?
> >Or simply apply the 5.7-c++11-atomics topic branch, because then the
> >std::atomic implementation will be the only one tested (except on MSVC,
> >of
>
On 2015-10-28, 6:15 PM, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>On Wednesday 28 October 2015 21:41:12 James McDonnell wrote:
>> I¹ve created a QNX JIRA for the atomic function pointer compile failure.
>> No idea (yet) if 6.6.0 will be patched as a result.
>
>Thanks James!
>
>Can you
On Wednesday 28 October 2015 21:41:12 James McDonnell wrote:
> I¹ve created a QNX JIRA for the atomic function pointer compile failure.
> No idea (yet) if 6.6.0 will be patched as a result.
Thanks James!
Can you provide the patch, so we can patch our xxatomic files?
> >Plus the tests at tests/au
On 2015-10-28, 12:02 PM, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>On Wednesday 28 October 2015 13:28:39 Rafael Roquetto wrote:
>> Hi James,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 02:10:02PM +, James McDonnell wrote:
>> > Fixes to 6.6.0 are...unlikely. But if you let me know what I need t
On Wednesday 28 October 2015 11:25:19 Knoll Lars wrote:
> Removing QNX support is not an option; we agreed at the contributor summit
> that QNX 6.6 is part of the baseline, just as much as VS 2012 is. So if
> that toolchain has some issues, we’ll need to work around them just as for
> some other pl
On Wednesday 28 October 2015 13:28:39 Rafael Roquetto wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 02:10:02PM +, James McDonnell wrote:
> > Fixes to 6.6.0 are...unlikely. But if you let me know what I need to
> > take/do to re-produce the problem I can try to help out. Is it just this
> >
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:52:20AM +, Sergio Martins wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:40:07 PM Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> >
> > From qcompilerdetection.h:
> >
> > # if defined(_HAS_DINKUM_CLIB) && !defined(_HAS_NULLPTR_T)
> > #undef Q_COMPILER_NULLPTR
> > # endif
>
> By the wa
Hi James,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 02:10:02PM +, James McDonnell wrote:
> Fixes to 6.6.0 are...unlikely. But if you let me know what I need to
> take/do to re-produce the problem I can try to help out. Is it just this
> particular change or do I need to take all the changes in the
> 5.7-c++11
Fixes to 6.6.0 are...unlikely. But if you let me know what I need to
take/do to re-produce the problem I can try to help out. Is it just this
particular change or do I need to take all the changes in the
5.7-c++11-atomics topic?
On 2015-10-28, 7:25 AM, "Development on behalf of Knoll Lars"
wrot
On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:40:07 PM Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> From qcompilerdetection.h:
>
> # if defined(_HAS_DINKUM_CLIB) && !defined(_HAS_NULLPTR_T)
> #undef Q_COMPILER_NULLPTR
> # endif
By the way, _HAS_DINKUM_CLIB is about the C library, not C++.
Should be replaced with: !_GLIB
Hi Thiago,
Removing QNX support is not an option; we agreed at the contributor summit that
QNX 6.6 is part of the baseline, just as much as VS 2012 is. So if that
toolchain has some issues, we’ll need to work around them just as for some
other platforms.
In fact, we have always been and will a
On Tuesday 27 October 2015 18:30:29 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Since this is an easy fix, can we count on the DW headers being fixed?
>
> If not, we should detect the mistake in the configure script and print the
> patch people should apply to their toolchains.
https://codereview.qt-project.org/13
On Tuesday 27 October 2015 18:03:22 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 October 2015 17:52:38 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > A3) if not (if the constexpr methods in the Standard Library are missing)
> > but the toolchain supports with its constexpr methods, I can fix
> > the header. Constexpr is n
On Tuesday 27 October 2015 17:52:38 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> A3) if not (if the constexpr methods in the Standard Library are missing)
> but the toolchain supports with its constexpr methods, I can fix
> the header. Constexpr is not a mandatory feature outside of QAtomicInteger.
BTW, the header
On Tuesday 27 October 2015 16:40:07 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> The check for certain defines indicates that there are versions of DW with
> the necessary support. Are those available for QNX 6.6 toolchains?
>
> If so, how soon can the CI be upgraded to those toolchains?
>
> If not, we'll have to m
Hello QNX experts
ref https://codereview.qt-project.org/121146 and
http://testresults.qt.io/logs/qt/qtbase/5dae65fe1934e8565af317da17b4d8f42f1d7b8f/LinuxRHEL_6_6x86_64QNXQNX_660armv5GCCRelease_DisableTests_OpenGLES2/da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709/buildlog.txt.gz
For Qt 5.7, we agreed t
16 matches
Mail list logo
