On Monday 02 July 2012 09:09:53 Ivan Cukic wrote:
>
> > > Debian Stable (Squeeze) is also 4.5 by default.
> >
> > Debian Stable (Squeeze) is 4.4.5 by default, with GCC 4.3.5 being
> > provided too.
>
> Yes, that is the reason I excluded Debian from the distros to watch in this
> case.
>
> Debi
> > Debian Stable (Squeeze) is also 4.5 by default.
>
> Debian Stable (Squeeze) is 4.4.5 by default, with GCC 4.3.5 being
> provided too.
Yes, that is the reason I excluded Debian from the distros to watch in this
case.
Debian stable will not ship 4.10 in any form, and from my experience, peop
Am 01.07.2012 23:08, schrieb Ivan Čukić:
So, I'd be content in using 4.5 for the time being simply because the
two features I find important in 4.6 can be /simulated/ in 4.5.
I think that sounds like a good compromise, so +1
For 4.11 we can then re-evaluate whether it makes sense/is possible to
Alle lunedì 2 luglio 2012, Scott Kitterman ha scritto:
> On Sunday, July 01, 2012 11:08:43 PM Ivan Čukić wrote:
> ...
>
> > - 4.6 is desired for the features, but problematic since not all
> > current stable versions of distros sport this version (last to fall
> > into line - Slackware)
>
> ...
>
On Sunday, July 01, 2012 11:08:43 PM Ivan Čukić wrote:
...
> - 4.6 is desired for the features, but problematic since not all
> current stable versions of distros sport this version (last to fall
> into line - Slackware)
...
Debian Stable (Squeeze) is also 4.5 by default. The next version (Wheezy)
So, in essence, the summary of the thread so far:
- libs still need to be compilable by old compilers until we get
Qt5/KF5 (afterwards, the requirement will be that of Qt itself)
- apps that don't target Mac, can depend on gcc-4.5-equivalent
compilers, as present in all stable releases of importan
On Saturday, 30. June 2012 19:20:07 Antonis Tsiapaliokas wrote:
> > -1 from me.
> > Latest Slackware release has 4.5, and I would very much prefer if this
> > stays
> > working.
> >
> > I don't see the features mentioned worth dropping platforms.
> >
> > Alex
>
> Yes, but the slackware-current i
Windows emerge tool currently uses gcc 4.6.4 for 64-bit and either gcc 4.7
or msvc 2010 for 32-bit, so for gcc builds there should be no problem, I'm
not sure about msvc.
--
Andrius.
2012/7/1 Martin Gräßlin
> Am 30.06.2012 17:31, schrieb Heinz Wiesinger:
>
> However, the point of dropping plat
Am 30.06.2012 17:31, schrieb Heinz Wiesinger:
However, the point of dropping platforms in general remains, I
suppose.
From what I understood the compilers are available in FreeBSD and I
think there was no other system having problems with it.
Regards
Martin Gräßlin
>
> -1 from me.
> Latest Slackware release has 4.5, and I would very much prefer if this
> stays
> working.
>
> I don't see the features mentioned worth dropping platforms.
>
> Alex
>
Yes, but the slackware-current is coming with gcc-4.7
On Saturday 30 June 2012 17:02:27 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Thursday, 28. June 2012 14:38:37 viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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
On Thursday, 28. June 2012 14:38:37 viv...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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 com
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
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:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Ivan Cukic wrote:
> From Ben Cooksley:
>> Debian Squeeze has gcc 4.4.5, and this is the base of build.kde.org.
>> It would be appreciated if we did not have to run Debian Testing on
>> the build slaves.
>
> Honestly, while having Jenkins around is quite neat, I do
>From Ben Cooksley:
> Debian Squeeze has gcc 4.4.5, and this is the base of build.kde.org.
> It would be appreciated if we did not have to run Debian Testing on
> the build slaves.
Honestly, while having Jenkins around is quite neat, I don't see a helper tool
as a valid reason to make the develop
> 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:
- lambdas (gcc 4.5)
- variadic templates (4.3 / 4.4)
- auto
On quarta-feira, 27 de junho de 2012 23.28.30, Ivan Čukić wrote:
> Now, my proposal here is to update the required versions for
> Frameworks 4 to reflect those of KDE Frameworks 5 / Qt 5. Now, I've
> found different information for this - skelly says [2] the requirement
> is GCC 4.6 while some othe
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Raphael Kubo da Costa
wrote:
> Ivan Čukić writes:
>
>> Now, my proposal here is to update the required versions for
>> Frameworks 4 to reflect those of KDE Frameworks 5 / Qt 5. Now, I've
>> found different information for this - skelly says [2] the requirement
>>
Am 27.06.2012, 23:52 Uhr, schrieb Alexander Neundorf :
On Wednesday 27 June 2012, Ivan Čukić wrote:
Hi all,
...
As an additional argument for raising the bar, here are the GCC
versions in most modern distros (collected by other people, didn't
check):
- Debian - 4.7 (testing)
- openSuse 12.1 -
El Dimecres, 27 de juny de 2012, a les 23:28:30, Ivan Čukić va escriure:
> Hi all,
Hi
>
> I've tested the waters some time ago [1] what would people say if we
> started asking for more modern compilers.
Can you explain why you need a more modern version, I see a good analysis of
what the curr
On Wednesday 27 June 2012, Ivan Čukić wrote:
> Hi all,
...
> As an additional argument for raising the bar, here are the GCC
> versions in most modern distros (collected by other people, didn't
> check):
> - Debian - 4.7 (testing)
> - openSuse 12.1 - 4.6
> - Kubuntu - 4.6
> - Fedora 16 - 4.6
> - Ge
> > Mainly, the responses were positive (from both users and developers).
>
> What is the current minimum requirement?
Can't find anything similar for the later versions of KDE SC, but for 4.4 it
is quite a list (even gcc 3.3 [1]):
http://techbase.kde.org/Schedules/KDE4/4.4_Requirements
Cheer
Ivan Čukić writes:
> Now, my proposal here is to update the required versions for
> Frameworks 4 to reflect those of KDE Frameworks 5 / Qt 5. Now, I've
> found different information for this - skelly says [2] the requirement
> is GCC 4.6 while some other places state it is GCC 4.5, so I'm not
> s
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, so I'm doing as
> promised. The post was
> 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, so I'm doing as
> promised. The post was only about kactivities, but the same could be
> appl
39 matches
Mail list logo
