On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
Why not just ignore RMS and the license issues and simply do what we
think suits us and the project. Let the FSF deal with the legal
cons
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>>> Why not just ignore RMS and the license issues and simply do what we
>>> think suits us and the project. Let the FSF deal with the legal
>>> consequences,
>>> they put us in this messy situation, they deal with
Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Why not just ignore RMS and the license issues and simply do what we
>> think suits us and the project. Let the FSF deal with the legal
>> consequences,
>> they put us in this messy situation, they deal with it.
>
> It seems to me that escalating the issue is more help
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Why not just ignore RMS and the license issues and simply do what we
> think suits us and the project. Let the FSF deal with the legal consequences,
> they put us in this messy situation, they deal with it.
It seems to me that escalatin
On 07/28/10 13:16, Piotr Rak wrote:
[snip]
Or you could just initialize static array of pointers, like that
(please note, that I never compiled code below):
[snip]
Piotr, something similar was proposed here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_thread/thread/364c0dd5
Hi,
2010/7/28 Hite, Christopher :
>> Generally without knowing the compiler version you are using
>> it is hard to tell.
> I'll use whatever's best. Right now I'm still on 4.4.3. I'll probably
> upgrade soon to 4.5.
>
>> The same is true without a complete compilable testcase.
> I didn't want to
On 07/28/10 10:53, Hite, Christopher wrote:
[snip]
struct DecodeContext;
struct M1{
static const int id=1;
static void decode(DecodeContext& ){}
};
struct M2{
static const int id=2;
static void decode(DecodeContext& ){}
};
struct M3{
static const int id=
> Generally without knowing the compiler version you are using
> it is hard to tell.
I'll use whatever's best. Right now I'm still on 4.4.3. I'll probably
upgrade soon to 4.5.
> The same is true without a complete compilable testcase.
I didn't want to make a test case that depends on boost::mp
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> As before, feel free to put questions that you would like to ask on this
> Wiki page:
I failed to include the URL.
It is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Release%20Manager%20Q%26A
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
On 07/28/10 09:37, Hite, Christopher wrote:
[snip]
I'm tring to use the template compiler to generate equivalent code. I
have a mpl::list of packet descriptions like this:
struct Packet1{
static const int id=1;
void decode();
};
I then use boost::
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Hite, Christopher
wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm writing a decoder using a meta programming techniques alla
> boost::mpl and I'd like to know if I'm asking too much of the compiler.
>
> Basically I've got lots of packet types with different ids. The
> classical way to write t
I'm writing a decoder using a meta programming techniques alla
boost::mpl and I'd like to know if I'm asking too much of the compiler.
Basically I've got lots of packet types with different ids. The
classical way to write these would be a switch case
int id;
switch(id){
12 matches
Mail list logo
