Re: [Firebird-devel] Core-1686

Also, let me know if there is anything else that needs hands, and I will be glad to help with that. On 1 Mar 2016 11:32 pm, "Atri Sharma" wrote: > Team, > > I was looking into the bug tracker to pick something to hack on, and found > Core-1686. This seemed pretty interesting

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 2/29/2016 2:19 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote: . Question: Does this problem would also affect the compiled client library? Or do you guys also think nobody using Win XP/2003 will needs to connect to Firebird? First, the discussion is about a version which, extrapolating from previous release

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

Em 01/03/2016 15:03, Jim Starkey escreveu: > > What I would like is for the memory allocator to initialize everything > to zero/null/false like Java and my original memory pools. Why waste > the code to manually initialize everything with the risk of missing > something when it could easily

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 3/1/2016 11:29 AM, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 01.03.2016 17:14, Jim Starkey wrote: >> The "error prone" argument gets tossed around a lot, but I generally >> don't buy it. Language features are not a substitute for testing. Sure, >> "override" will get a compiler error if you blow an

[Firebird-devel] Core-1686

Team, I was looking into the bug tracker to pick something to hack on, and found Core-1686. This seemed pretty interesting to me, but I have never had a look at Firebird core before. Any place where I can start hacking, reading about the architecture, code pointers, guidance please? Regards,

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

01.03.2016 17:14, Jim Starkey wrote: > The "error prone" argument gets tossed around a lot, but I generally > don't buy it. Language features are not a substitute for testing. Sure, > "override" will get a compiler error if you blow an overriding method > prototype, but so will cursory testing.

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 2016-03-01 17:03, Jim Starkey wrote: > On 3/1/2016 10:27 AM, Egor Pugin wrote: >>> Personally, I'm sticking with Visual Studio 2010 until I find a >>> compelling reason to pay Microsoft big bucks to upgrade. >> VS2015 Community (and probably VS2013 Comm.) is free for open source >>

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 3/1/2016 10:21 AM, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 01.03.2016 16:14, Jim Starkey wrote: >>Dropping support for platforms so you can use new C++ >> features that really don't add anything to the language. > More readable and error-prone code worth that, IMHO. > More readable is a virtue,

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 3/1/2016 11:10 AM, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > Maybe it's changed, but the freebie versions tend not to support MFC, > which I need for historical reasons. > That was Visual Studio Express, Visual Studio Community is equivalent > to Visual Studio Professional with the exception of some TFS support

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 3/1/2016 10:27 AM, Egor Pugin wrote: >> Personally, I'm sticking with Visual Studio 2010 until I find a compelling >> reason to pay Microsoft big bucks to upgrade. > VS2015 Community (and probably VS2013 Comm.) is free for open source > development. And since we're talking about firebird - no

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 2016-03-01 16:27, Egor Pugin wrote: >> Personally, I'm sticking with Visual Studio 2010 until I find a >> compelling reason to pay Microsoft big bucks to upgrade. > > VS2015 Community (and probably VS2013 Comm.) is free for open source > development. And since we're talking about firebird - no

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

> Personally, I'm sticking with Visual Studio 2010 until I find a compelling > reason to pay Microsoft big bucks to upgrade. VS2015 Community (and probably VS2013 Comm.) is free for open source development. And since we're talking about firebird - no fees required to use it. On 1 March 2016 at

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

01.03.2016 16:14, Jim Starkey wrote: > Dropping support for platforms so you can use new C++ > features that really don't add anything to the language. More readable and error-prone code worth that, IMHO. -- WBR, SD.

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 3/1/2016 8:38 AM, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 01.03.2016 14:20, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >> They may be maintained by someone else. We don't require our sources to >> be built using VS 2013 exclusively. > Yes, but VS 2010 doesn't support member initialization on declaration > (very handy >

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 03/01/2016 05:58 PM, Egor Pugin wrote: >> If we manage to get rid of autotools usage, things will get even more simple. > But what about VS? .bat files? Projects for every version? I see in > svn how devs commit missing files to rarely used VS projects. > That's not cool and not productive. I

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

01.03.2016 16:01, Alex Peshkoff wrote: > Yes, avoiding use of autotools might be useful. The method used by it > for any checks called 'try to compile a program' fails in some cases > (for example on MacOS some functions compile and link, but always return > "not implemented" errno) and causes a

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

On 03/01/2016 05:47 PM, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 01.03.2016 15:21, Egor Pugin wrote: >> Maintaining different build systems (makefiles + VS projects for >> several versions) is not worth it. > Currently makefiles don't need maintaining: all changes in sources are > accepted >

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

01.03.2016 15:21, Egor Pugin wrote: > Maintaining different build systems (makefiles + VS projects for > several versions) is not worth it. Currently makefiles don't need maintaining: all changes in sources are accepted automatically. And it saving people from getting and installing of

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

01.03.2016 14:20, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: > They may be maintained by someone else. We don't require our sources to > be built using VS 2013 exclusively. Yes, but VS 2010 doesn't support member initialization on declaration (very handy thing), named member initialization, defaulted, deleted

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

I'm not saying opposite. Use IDE, but do project configuration using text files (in any editor or IDE) and not using IDE features like drag-n-gropping files from disk to project or solution dirs. On 1 March 2016 at 17:28, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 01.03.2016 15:21, Egor

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

01.03.2016 15:21, Egor Pugin wrote: > You (fb devs) should consider higher level build system (CMake) that > can generate all stuff for you. Build system cannot substitute IDE. -- WBR, SD. -- Site24x7 APM

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

You (fb devs) should consider higher level build system (CMake) that can generate all stuff for you. It can generate projects for any VS version. See https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.5/manual/cmake-generators.7.html#visual-studio-generators Maintaining different build systems (makefiles + VS

Re: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows

01.03.2016 16:08, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > So, is usage of VS 2013 as a main build for Windows decided? > If so, I'd suggest to delete VS 2010 and lesser projects from build dir. They may be maintained by someone else. We don't require our sources to be built using VS 2013 exclusively. That