Re: Compiler version

Il 28/06/2012 16:31, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> On quinta-feira, 28 de junho de 2012 14.38.37, vivo75 <at> 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.
>

Thiago you work to qt5 which include the c++11 stuff, so probably you 
know better than rumors around, must admit that I've spoken by those 
rather than an extended experience in the field.

What made me think the rumors were true is:
a) many programs which support to be compiled with c++11 syntax require 
gcc-4.7
b) that the resolved/fixed bug list is rather long:

A search for resolved/fixed bugs with 'C++0x' or 'C++11' in the summary
580 bugs found [1]

the same search with gcc-4.7.{0,1,2} as "known to fail" is much shorter:
22 bugs found [2]

feature wise instead the increment in 4.7 seem to be short (there was a 
diff in the first mail):

Non-static data member
New wording for C++11 lambdas
Template aliases
Delegating constructors

Re: Compiler version

On Saturday 30 June 2012 17:02:27 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Thursday, 28. June 2012 14:38:37 vivo75 <at> 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 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
> > >> applied to more stuff.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for bringing up the issue, I actually intended to write a similar
> > > mail tomorrow to request that applications are allowed to require
> > > compilers supporting C++11 features.
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > > So +1 for a minimum requirement of gcc 4.6 or clang 3.1
> 
> -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.

Next Slackware will come with 4.7 (and clang 3.0) so raising the bar for 
future kde releases shouldn't be a problem there IMHO (based on the fact that 

Re: Compiler version

Re: Compiler version

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Ivan Cukic <ivan.cukic <at> kde.org> 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 don't see a helper tool
> as a valid reason to make the development more difficult.

I was simply requesting that the dependency is not raised
unnecessarily (lambdas seem to definitely be desirable).
I understand however that 4.4.5 is indeed quite old and that a
different underlying base may be needed however to be able to build
some components of KDE.

>
> Anyhow, guessing that we will not agree about raising the requirement for the
> libraries, not for the forseable future, and that is more or less fine for me.
> Libraries are always a special case.
>
> The second are applications. To quote Martin:
>
>> Thanks for bringing up the issue, I actually intended to write a similar
>> mail tomorrow to request that applications are allowed to require compilers
>> supporting C++11 features.
>
> IMO, application developers should choose which range of systems they want to
> target. For example, for core things that should run (kded, kwallet, etc.???)
> on Lin/Win/Mac, ok, the requirement can't be above 4.2.
>
> For applications that are not essential to the rest of the environment to
> function properly, this shouldn't be the case. If KSomeApp developers decide
> they don't care about Mac, they shouldn't be under the above restrictions.
>
> Workspace applications (kwin, activity manager, and more) are not meant for
> /strange/ platforms like windows/mac, so they should belong to the later
> category.
>
> So, in a nutshell, the more important for other components something is, the
> lower should be the required gcc version.
>
> Cheerio,
> Ivan
>
>
> --
> Money can't buy happiness, but neither can poverty.
>  -- Leo Rosten
>

Regards,
Ben

Re: Re: Compiler version

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 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 recent discussion on plasma mailing list 
[1].

 <at> Raphael any idea about that?

Cheers
Martin Gräßlin

[1] http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/2012-June/019955.html

Re: Compiler version

> 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 supports it, making your code safe in 
that aspect, while someone could still compile the code with an older 
compiler.

It doesn't help in the cases where there is an ambigous resolution int vs ptr, 
but it can be done if needed. [1]

> 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 

They are moving towards clang 3.1 for FreeBSD 10. So, I don't see them as a 
problem in this case - they should become compliant in the version that will 
ship 4.10.

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2012-May/067486.html

Cheerio,
Ivan

[1] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/More_C%2B%2B_Idioms/nullptr

--

-- 
While you were hanging yourself on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun