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

16.05.2016 8:26, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: > I suggest to drop support for VS versions 8.0 and 9.0 in the master > branch. VS 10, 12/13 and 14/15 will still be supported. I suggest to drop VS 2010 as well. Four versions is enough, IMHO. -- WBR, SD.

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

All, I suggest to drop support for VS versions 8.0 and 9.0 in the master branch. VS 10, 12/13 and 14/15 will still be supported. Dmitry -- Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who bring

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

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

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

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:38:16AM -0500, Jim Starkey wrote: > I'm not at all sure that having "official" Firebird compilers is that > good of an idea. > > The basic principle is that the code should work on a wide variety of > compilers. You (and not only you) are mixing two very different

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

>> Anyway, my point is just to show that those 2 systems can still be >> widely used in some parts of the world, and this should be taken into >> the math when taking any decision. JČ> Just out of curiosity. Are these systems going to be upgraded to JČ> Firebird 4? You need to ask the Oracle :)

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

On 2016-02-29 13:02, Carlos H. Cantu wrote: > MR> Let me make my position clear: I don't see the need to support a > 14 > MR> year old OS that has had no updates (including security updates) > since > MR> April 2014. If you're in business with such systems, you are > operating > MR>

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

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

> About outdated, insecure environments, you have no idea about what you > can find here, and I will not even speak about this :D > > Anyway, my point is just to show that those 2 systems can still be > widely used in some parts of the world, and this should be taken into > the math when taking

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

MR> Let me make my position clear: I don't see the need to support a 14 MR> year old OS that has had no updates (including security updates) since MR> April 2014. If you're in business with such systems, you are operating MR> irresponsibly and I see no need to support such behavior. Also if you

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

> Let me make my position clear: I don't see the need to support a 14 > year old OS that has had no updates (including security updates) since > April 2014. If you're in business with such systems, you are operating > irresponsibly and I see no need to support such behavior. Also if you > are

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

On 2016-02-29 1:25, Carlos H. Cantu wrote: >>> However, I seriously question the need to support Windows XP and >>> Windows Server 2003 for Firebird 4. > > LS> I completely agree! > LS> There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized > as *legacy*. > LS> Systems based on those

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

On 28/02/16 18:19, Leyne, Sean wrote: > >> > However, I seriously question the need to support Windows XP and >> > Windows Server 2003 for Firebird 4. > I completely agree! > > There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized as *legacy*. > > Systems based on those platforms

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

2016. 02. 28. 12:21 keltezéssel, Mark Rotteveel írta: > However, I seriously question the need to support Windows XP and Windows > Server 2003 for Firebird 4. I have no right to vote, but I think that Windows 7 SP1 / Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 perfectly reasonable minimum requirement. Gabor

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

>> I'm quite happy with VS 2013 Community Edition, but I never tried VS >> 2015 and I'm mostly on Linux during the last years. >> >> Vlad, do you have any preference? > > I used VS 2013 for a long time and still have no look at VS 2015. > So, VS 2012 definitely out of question ;) Hi All,

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

>> There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized as *legacy*. > Such as Solaris, for example?.. Still alive and kicking I am afraid. Firebird 2.5 Compiles cleanly for Solaris and is in use. Paul --

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

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 09:25:30PM -0300, Carlos H. Cantu wrote: > >> However, I seriously question the need to support Windows XP and > >> Windows Server 2003 for Firebird 4. > > LS> I completely agree! > LS> There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized as > *legacy*. > LS>

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

>> However, I seriously question the need to support Windows XP and >> Windows Server 2003 for Firebird 4. LS> I completely agree! LS> There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized as *legacy*. LS> Systems based on those platforms need to recognize that they LS> can't be running

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

rwerp: [Firebird-devel] Compiler for official Firebird 4 release on Windows Datum: zo, feb. 28, 2016 19:53 28.02.2016 19:27, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > Solaris is still being maintained by Oracle AFAIK. Yes, but do they have a compiler wit

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

28.02.2016 19:27, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > Solaris is still being maintained by Oracle AFAIK. Yes, but do they have a compiler with C++11 support there? -- WBR, SD. -- Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility

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

Solaris is still being maintained by Oracle AFAIK. Mark - Bericht beantwoorden - Van: "Dimitry Sibiryakov" <s...@ibphoenix.com> Aan: "For discussion among Firebird Developers" <firebird-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> Onderwerp: [Firebird-devel] Compiler

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

28.02.2016 19:19, Leyne, Sean wrote: > There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized as *legacy*. Such as Solaris, for example?.. -- WBR, SD. -- Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into

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

> However, I seriously question the need to support Windows XP and > Windows Server 2003 for Firebird 4. I completely agree! There comes a time when some OSs/installs need to be recognized as *legacy*. Systems based on those platforms need to recognize that they can't be running the

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

28.02.2016 12:47, Mark Rotteveel пишет: > On 28-2-2016 11:35, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >> 28.02.2016 13:17, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: >> >>> 28.02.2016 11:05, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: It's not about VS 2015, but about C++14 in general >>> >>> Read some more. Problem is not standard, but VS 2015

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

28.02.2016 12:18, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > As far as I know VS 2015 needs to be explicitly set to compile for > Windows XP. I wonder if it can be set to use GCC compiler instead... -- WBR, SD. -- Site24x7 APM

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

On 28-2-2016 12:18, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > On 28-2-2016 11:57, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: >> 28.02.2016 11:46, Mark Rotteveel wrote: >>> And for us people who don't read russian? >> >> Google Translate?.. :) >> In short: simple construction "BYTE buf[16] = {0};" crashes on WinXP >> when

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

On 28-2-2016 11:57, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 28.02.2016 11:46, Mark Rotteveel wrote: >> And for us people who don't read russian? > > Google Translate?.. :) > In short: simple construction "BYTE buf[16] = {0};" crashes on WinXP when > is compiled > with VS 2015 but works with any other

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

28.02.2016 11:46, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > And for us people who don't read russian? Google Translate?.. :) In short: simple construction "BYTE buf[16] = {0};" crashes on WinXP when is compiled with VS 2015 but works with any other compiler. -- WBR, SD.

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

28.02.2016 11:48, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > That link is for VS 2015. Comparison table there are. -- WBR, SD. -- Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM:

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

On 28-2-2016 11:17, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 28.02.2016 11:05, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >> It's not about VS 2015, but about C++14 in general > > Read some more. Problem is not standard, but VS 2015 code generator which > unconditionally generate SSE2 instructions. It drives old processors out

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

On 28-2-2016 11:46, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 28.02.2016 11:35, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >> Anyway, we already seem to settle on VS 2012, thanks to Vlad. > > He said that "VS 2012 is out of question" which ususaly means that it > must not be > considered at all. > I.e. he woted for VS

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

On 28-2-2016 11:35, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: > 28.02.2016 13:17, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > >> 28.02.2016 11:05, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >>> It's not about VS 2015, but about C++14 in general >> >> Read some more. Problem is not standard, but VS 2015 code generator which >> unconditionally generate

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

On 28-2-2016 10:44, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 28.02.2016 10:39, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >> We need to choose between VS 2012/2013 and VS 2015 for FB4. > > Before voting for VS 2015 look at this: > http://www.sql.ru/forum/actualthread.aspx?tid=1200248 And for us people who don't read russian?

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

28.02.2016 11:35, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: > Anyway, we already seem to settle on VS 2012, thanks to Vlad. He said that "VS 2012 is out of question" which ususaly means that it must not be considered at all. I.e. he woted for VS 2013. BTW, I too because of

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

28.02.2016 13:17, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 28.02.2016 11:05, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >> It's not about VS 2015, but about C++14 in general > > Read some more. Problem is not standard, but VS 2015 code generator which > unconditionally generate SSE2 instructions. It drives old processors out of

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

28.02.2016 11:05, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: > It's not about VS 2015, but about C++14 in general Read some more. Problem is not standard, but VS 2015 code generator which unconditionally generate SSE2 instructions. It drives old processors out of picture. GCC has no such problem. -- WBR,

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

28.02.2016 11:39, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: > 10.12.2015 21:27, Mark Rotteveel wrote: > > [subject changed to follow the thread direction] > >> Maybe FB 4 should be based on VS 2015 instead of 2013. > > We need to choose between VS 2012/2013 and VS 2015 for FB4. > > I'm quite happy with VS 2013

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

28.02.2016 12:44, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > Before voting for VS 2015 look at this: > http://www.sql.ru/forum/actualthread.aspx?tid=1200248 It's not about VS 2015, but about C++14 in general, including recent GCC versions. We already know our code does not comply the new language

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

28.02.2016 10:39, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: > We need to choose between VS 2012/2013 and VS 2015 for FB4. Before voting for VS 2015 look at this: http://www.sql.ru/forum/actualthread.aspx?tid=1200248 -- WBR, SD. --

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

10.12.2015 21:27, Mark Rotteveel wrote: [subject changed to follow the thread direction] > Maybe FB 4 should be based on VS 2015 instead of 2013. We need to choose between VS 2012/2013 and VS 2015 for FB4. I'm quite happy with VS 2013 Community Edition, but I never tried VS 2015 and I'm