On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 15.34.31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It's probably worth mentioning that there are issues in GCC 4.7 with mixing
> C++98 and C++11 code on one system. Here's the best discussion of it I
> could find:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53646
>
> I
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 09:20:54 PM Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 18.53.03, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Il 28/06/2012 16:31, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> > > On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 14.38.37, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> actually for stability and
On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 18.53.03, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> Il 28/06/2012 16:31, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> > On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 14.38.37, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> actually for stability and feature related to c++11 gcc-4.7 is nearly
> >> the minimum, but in my
Il 28/06/2012 16:31, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 14.38.37, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
actually for stability and feature related to c++11 gcc-4.7 is nearly
the minimum, but in my experience gcc-4.7 is still a bit rough so +1 for
gcc-4.6
That's nonsense. C++11 s
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105371/#review15242
---
This review has been submitted with commit
d93ac7d8f56568ce11b
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105371/#review15241
---
This review has been submitted with commit
9145b51c1cc4e9ecd27
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105371/#review15240
---
This review has been submitted with commit
2e094436a6cf05d2122
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105371/#review15238
---
Ship it!
Makes sense, kill them and backport as much as you wa
On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 18.09.22, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2012, 10:20:42 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
> > On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 10.14.03, Ivan Cukic wrote:
> > > Well, nullptr is a compile time check, right (like explicit override)?
> > > So,
> > > yo
On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 13.37.14, Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
> Thiago, on C++ 0 and (void*) 0 are the same thing? I know that on C
> they aren't, and I didn't found the information easily on the web.
No, they are not.
In C++, 0 can be cast to any pointer, but so can 0L and false. However
Martin Gräßlin writes:
> What about freebsd? Personally I am not willing to support that platform
> anymore if it would mean that we have to restrict ourself to an outdated gcc
> version. Reasons why in general I would find it acceptable to drop support for
> non-linux in KWin are outlined in a r
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Rolf Eike Beer
wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2012, 10:20:42 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
>> On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 10.14.03, Ivan Cukic wrote:
>> > Well, nullptr is a compile time check, right (like explicit override)? So,
>> > you compile your code w
Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2012, 10:20:42 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
> On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 10.14.03, Ivan Cukic wrote:
> > Well, nullptr is a compile time check, right (like explicit override)? So,
> > you compile your code with a compiler that supports it, making your code
> > safe in
On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 14.38.37, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> actually for stability and feature related to c++11 gcc-4.7 is nearly
> the minimum, but in my experience gcc-4.7 is still a bit rough so +1 for
> gcc-4.6
That's nonsense. C++11 support in GCC 4.5 and 4.6 is just fine.
--
Il 27/06/2012 23:41, Martin Gräßlin ha scritto:
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 23:28:30 Ivan Čukić wrote:
Hi all,
I've tested the waters some time ago [1] what would people say if we
started asking for more modern compilers. I've stated there I'll start
the discussion on k-c-d once we branch out 4.9
On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 10.14.03, Ivan Cukic wrote:
> Well, nullptr is a compile time check, right (like explicit override)? So,
> you compile your code with a compiler that supports it, making your code
> safe in that aspect, while someone could still compile the code with an
> older
> how would nullptr be useful with a macro-based switch? I actually want to do
> a sed s/NULL/nullptr/g on the complete code base. And I hope everyone can
> understand that :-)
Well, nullptr is a compile time check, right (like explicit override)? So, you
compile your code with a compiler that s
On Thursday 28 June 2012 00:55:15 Ivan Cukic wrote:
> Workspace applications (kwin, activity manager, and more) are not meant for
> /strange/ platforms like windows/mac, so they should belong to the later
> category.
What about freebsd? Personally I am not willing to support that platform
anymore i
On Thursday 28 June 2012 00:27:08 Ivan Cukic wrote:
> > Can you explain why you need a more modern version, I see a good analysis
> > of what the current situation regarding compiler availability but i fail
> > to see why we need a newer compiler.
>
> For me, the main reasons for this request are:
19 matches
Mail list logo
