On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:47:50 +0900
hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
> Michał Górny writes:
> > And that brings another issue in Gentoo -- gcc-config. AFAIR this
> > tool is completely insane and switches libstdc++ along with gcc
> > version. As a result, after switching to a gcc version with
> > differen
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 17:29:19 CEST, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
just a question, what would do -fabi-version=6 added to CXXFLAGS even
w/o C++11?
I believe that -fabi-version is for "low level bits" at the level of e.g.
identifier mangling. It cannot affect whether a std::string is refcoun
On 12/19/13 16:17, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 December 2013 10:18:55 CEST, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Would it be possible to have a consistent ABI for both C++03 and C++11?
>> The simpler changes like adding new fields can be backported quite
>> easily (even if it would mean having dummy fie
On 12/19/2013 10:23 AM, Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 16:00:13 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
A change in profiles? 14.0/* adds that to the default CXXFLAGS in
base, new stage3's etc are all rolled with this. We recommend
migration to 14.0 profile and have a check somewhere a
On 12/19/2013 10:00 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/12/13 04:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 09:58:25 Sven Eden
napisał(a):
So I'd go the reverse way. Make CXXFLAGS="-std=c++11" the
default, and only override this for pack
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 16:00:13 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
A change in profiles? 14.0/* adds that to the default CXXFLAGS in
base, new stage3's etc are all rolled with this. We recommend
migration to 14.0 profile and have a check somewhere about
"-std=c++11" missing from CXXFLAGS in c
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 10:18:55 CEST, Michał Górny wrote:
Would it be possible to have a consistent ABI for both C++03 and C++11?
The simpler changes like adding new fields can be backported quite
easily (even if it would mean having dummy fields in C++03), I have no
idea about the more co
Michał Górny writes:
> Think of paludis as a good example. People who'd like to use Paludis
> will end up with broken package manager from time to time. How are they
> supposed to rebuild it without a working package manager?
Oh, I'm scared. I'll step away and watch out for such situation at all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/12/13 04:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 09:58:25 Sven Eden
> napisał(a):
>
>> So I'd go the reverse way. Make CXXFLAGS="-std=c++11" the
>> default, and only override this for packages that do fishy stuff
>> and break wi
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 22:47:50
hero...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
> Michał Górny writes:
>
> > And that brings another issue in Gentoo -- gcc-config. AFAIR this tool
> > is completely insane and switches libstdc++ along with gcc version.
> > As a result, after switching to a gcc version with diff
Michał Górny writes:
> And that brings another issue in Gentoo -- gcc-config. AFAIR this tool
> is completely insane and switches libstdc++ along with gcc version.
> As a result, after switching to a gcc version with different C++ ABI,
> installed software gets broken. And you can't really fix it
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 09:44:38 CEST, "C. Bergström" wrote:
libboost.so (or any really popular lib.. Qt..) built with
-std=c++11 breaks abi
As I said, the problem is more complicated. Qt5 built with the C++11
support does not break its ABI compared to usign the C++98 mode.
Boost is in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 15:34:13 -0800
Matt Turner wrote:
> And at the same time, clean up the descriptions of the other flags.
> The existing descriptions were clearly copy-and-pasted and contained
> things like "faster floating point optimization for
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 09:43:40
Jan Kundrát napisał(a):
> On Thursday, 19 December 2013 02:41:55 CEST, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
> > I'd like to make an analogy to the version bump of gcc[1]. We (gentoo)
> > decide to support c++11 officially or not. If so, open a tracker bug to
> > push it glo
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 09:58:25
Sven Eden napisał(a):
> Am Mittwoch, 18. Dezember 2013, 08:54:47 schrieb Michał Górny:
> > This raises the following question: how do we want to do it? I see two
> > possibilities:
> >
> > a) adding USE=c++11 and USE-deps to all the packages in question,
> >
>
Am Mittwoch, 18. Dezember 2013, 08:54:47 schrieb Michał Górny:
> This raises the following question: how do we want to do it? I see two
> possibilities:
>
> a) adding USE=c++11 and USE-deps to all the packages in question,
>
> b) doing the switch via synchronous version bump and matching
> depend
2013/12/19 Michał Górny :
>> In practice wouldn't that mean you'd have to add c++11 USE flag to every
>> C++11 application and lib?
>
> No. Only the libs that change their ABI in C++11.
Which is true for every library that exchanges quite a few STL classes
with the outer world (see [1] in your ori
On 12/19/13 03:35 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 15:28:46
"C. Bergström" napisał(a):
On 12/19/13 03:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 00:56:31
"C. Bergström" napisał(a):
On 12/19/13 12:47 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 19 December 2013 06:33, Jan Kundrát w
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 09:35:14 CEST, Michał Górny wrote:
And how is this an issue to the major distributions? Binary distros can
do a simple switch with standard all-package upgrade and forget about
it. Like they usually do. Only people who built from sources have to
think about it.
Wro
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 02:41:55 CEST, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd like to make an analogy to the version bump of gcc[1]. We (gentoo)
decide to support c++11 officially or not. If so, open a tracker bug to
push it globally. If not, patch lldb to support non-c++11, or leave it
up to the us
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 15:28:46
"C. Bergström" napisał(a):
> On 12/19/13 03:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 00:56:31
> > "C. Bergström" napisał(a):
> >
> >> On 12/19/13 12:47 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> >>> On 19 December 2013 06:33, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> I'm worried
On 12/19/13 03:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 00:56:31
"C. Bergström" napisał(a):
On 12/19/13 12:47 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 19 December 2013 06:33, Jan Kundrát wrote:
I'm worried by the cost of such a policy, though, because we would suddenly
have to patch some unkno
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 00:56:31
"C. Bergström" napisał(a):
> On 12/19/13 12:47 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On 19 December 2013 06:33, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> >> I'm worried by the cost of such a policy, though, because we would suddenly
> >> have to patch some unknown amount of software
> >
> > G
23 matches
Mail list logo
