On Wednesday 27 November 2024 06:51:23 Pacific Standard Time Volker Hilsheimer
via Development wrote:
> As per the comments to that change, it’s a) not going to fly and b) not the
> choice a single person can make, even if that person is the maintainer of
> Qt Core 🙂
>
> A more pragmatic and scal
> On 27 Nov 2024, at 02:18, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 26 November 2024 16:32:20 Pacific Standard Time Tor Arne Vestbø
> via
> Development wrote:
>>> Someone who cares about Windows/MSVC may want to take the mantle here,
>>> because cpp-winrt will be disabled for C++17.
>>
>> Plea
On Tuesday 26 November 2024 16:32:20 Pacific Standard Time Tor Arne Vestbø via
Development wrote:
> > Someone who cares about Windows/MSVC may want to take the mantle here,
> > because cpp-winrt will be disabled for C++17.
>
> Please elaborate. Disabled by who, in what configuration, and why?
Di
> On Nov 27, 2024, at 01:22, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 26 November 2024 08:58:38 Pacific Standard Time Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
>> That being the case, I'm just not going to do anything. Not my problem any
>> more to move us forward. That also means I will not be doing the work to
On Tuesday 26 November 2024 08:58:38 Pacific Standard Time Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> That being the case, I'm just not going to do anything. Not my problem any
> more to move us forward. That also means I will not be doing the work to
> test our headers in C++23 mode either - that's SEP again.
Som
On Monday 28 October 2024 09:14:43 Pacific Standard Time Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Of course.
>
> But you understood my general goals and, so long as I keep to them as Volker
> is requesting, neither you nor anyone else had a problem.
Update:
Re: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-131575
even
Hello,
Il 28/10/24 16:39, Fabian Kosmale via Development ha scritto:
However, if it comes to ABI, I'm not convinced that we have a solution.
As long as e.g. libstdc++ declares its support experimental, are we
really willing to export C++20 symbols from Qt? If not, do we have
strategy to prevent
On Monday 28 October 2024 08:40:25 Pacific Daylight Time Andreas Aardal Hanssen
wrote:
> Man 28 okt 2024 kl. 16:29 skrev Thiago Macieira:
> > Lazy consensus is part of our governance. If no one speaks up with
> > arguments against, it implies no one has arguments against of sufficient
> > interest
On Monday 28 October 2024 08:39:59 Pacific Daylight Time Fabian Kosmale via
Development wrote:
> 1. Ensuring that CI gives us enough test coverage, which I suspect might be
> solvable by configuring Qt to build examples and tests by default still
> with 17.
I'll investigate, but I've never look
On Monday 28 October 2024 00:59:25 Pacific Daylight Time Vladimir Minenko via
Development wrote:
> Hi Thiago,
>
> I would not take the silence as a sign of consent. I rather have the
> impression that there is no sufficient interest in this at the moment.
> Despite this, there are quite a few urg
4 16:29
An: development@qt-project.org
Betreff: Re: [Development] Switching Qt default builds to C++20 where supported
On Monday 28 October 2024 00:59:25 Pacific Daylight Time Vladimir Minenko via
Development wrote:
> Hi Thiago,
>
> I would not take the silence as a sign of consent. I rather ha
Man 28 okt 2024 kl. 16:29 skrev Thiago Macieira:
> Lazy consensus is part of our governance. If no one speaks up with arguments
> against, it implies no one has arguments against of sufficient interest to
> them
> to voice in the first place. Lack of interest and apathy imply people don't
> c
On Monday 28 October 2024 08:10:42 Pacific Daylight Time Volker Hilsheimer via
Development wrote:
> As long as we can guarantee that the binaries we distribute with this change
> are source- and binary-compatible with what is today released without this
> change, and as long as the other conclusio
> On 28 Oct 2024, at 06:57, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Friday 18 October 2024 08:36:22 Pacific Daylight Time Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
>> I'm going to assume that silence is consent to "there is no drawback" and
>> will proceed with the implementation.
>
> It's been a week since I posted th
On Friday 18 October 2024 08:36:22 Pacific Daylight Time Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I'm going to assume that silence is consent to "there is no drawback" and
> will proceed with the implementation.
It's been a week since I posted this, so as soon as I find the time to satisfy
the technical reviews,
Hi Thiago,
I would not take the silence as a sign of consent. I rather have the impression
that there is no sufficient interest in this at the moment. Despite this, there
are quite a few urgent improvements required on the CI. I greatly doubt it will
be possible to have additional configuration
On Monday 14 October 2024 10:31:22 GMT-7 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday 14 October 2024 09:53:56 GMT-7 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > The last time we discussed this was at QtCS24
> > > (https://wiki.qt.io/QtCS2024_C%2B%2B20), where IIRC the conclusion was
> > > that
> > > ATM, there is no reason
On Monday 14 October 2024 11:46:17 GMT-7 Mathias Hasselmann via Development
wrote:
> The QtCS24 misses the single one big reason you want to switch C++20 now
> and whenever possible: Concepts.
Using them unconditionally means forcing users to C++20. We agreed we can't
have that right now.
Howev
On 14/10/2024 20:46, Mathias Hasselmann via Development wrote:
The QtCS24 misses the single one big reason you want to switch C++20 now
and whenever possible: Concepts.
They indeed are a total game changer and I'd boldy predict that 80% of
all meta-programming helpers in Qt's headers could be re
The QtCS24 misses the single one big reason you want to switch C++20 now
and whenever possible: Concepts.
They indeed are a total game changer and I'd boldy predict that 80% of
all meta-programming helpers in Qt's headers could be replaced by
concepts that are easier to understand, more expressi
On Monday 14 October 2024 09:53:56 GMT-7 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > The last time we discussed this was at QtCS24
> > (https://wiki.qt.io/QtCS2024_C%2B%2B20), where IIRC the conclusion was
> > that
> > ATM, there is no reason to switch to C++20. So, it is definitely not in
> > 6.9.
>
> That was "n
On Monday 14 October 2024 07:56:35 GMT-7 Vladimir Minenko via Development
wrote:
> 6) when should we do this?
> The last time we discussed C++20, it was made clear that we can only do such
> changes on LTS+1 releases. That's 6.9.
>
> The last time we discussed this was at QtCS24
> (https://wiki.q
On 14/10/2024 16:56, Vladimir Minenko via Development wrote:
Effectively, I don't see much difference from the current situation,
where we "pretend" that we require C++17 but in reality we just check
that we can pass `-std=c++17` to the compiler. Any usage in Qt code of
individual language/li
6) when should we do this?
The last time we discussed C++20, it was made clear that we can only do such
changes on LTS+1 releases. That's 6.9.
The last time we discussed this was at QtCS24
(https://wiki.qt.io/QtCS2024_C%2B%2B20), where IIRC the conclusion was that
ATM, there is no reason to swit
On Monday 14 October 2024 06:13:49 GMT-7 Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
wrote:
> Do you foresee any problems at actually guaranteeing that we still work
> with C++17, should one force the C++ version (via whatever means)?
> I mean, we have to keep work in C++17 anyhow (for some toolchains),
>
On 10/10/2024 18:57, Thiago Macieira wrote:
Re: https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/463425
TL;DR: for some std::format functionality, we really want to have out-of-line
implementations, which requires QtCore compiled with C++20. See
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/595
Re: https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/463425
TL;DR: for some std::format functionality, we really want to have out-of-line
implementations, which requires QtCore compiled with C++20. See
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/595309/2/src/corelib/text/
qstring.cpp for the
27 matches
Mail list logo
