On 08/12/2015 05:08 AM, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 14:59 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 07/02/2015 10:31 AM, Murray Cumming wrote:
Does anyone object to us requiring C++11 as long as we don't break ABI?
There's a reasonable chance that this won't break ABI.
How does this play
On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 14:59 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 07/02/2015 10:31 AM, Murray Cumming wrote:
Does anyone object to us requiring C++11 as long as we don't break ABI?
There's a reasonable chance that this won't break ABI.
How does this play with gtkmm 2.4? If glibmm now requires
need to
be built with std=c++11 as well?
My understanding is that using C++11 and the ABI break are independent
of each other.
Yes; that's actually not what I wanted to know :) Thanks for the very
detailed answer though! Let me try to reword my question:
First of all, this is with my Fedora
?
My understanding is that using C++11 and the ABI break are independent
of each other.
Yes; that's actually not what I wanted to know :) Thanks for the very
detailed answer though! Let me try to reword my question:
First of all, this is with my Fedora package maintainer hat on.
Fedora and other
2015-08-03 14:59 GMT+02:00 Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com:
How does this play with gtkmm 2.4? If glibmm now requires C++11, does it
mean that gtkmm 2.4 and legacy apps that are still on gtkmm 2.4 need to
be built with std=c++11 as well?
My understanding is that using C++11 and the ABI
On 07/02/2015 10:31 AM, Murray Cumming wrote:
Does anyone object to us requiring C++11 as long as we don't break ABI?
There's a reasonable chance that this won't break ABI.
How does this play with gtkmm 2.4? If glibmm now requires C++11, does it
mean that gtkmm 2.4 and legacy apps that are
C++11 would cause ABI breaks too, but plenty of
better-informed people doubt that, so I'm just being pessimistic.
Does anyone object to the ABI break?
Then again, if Ubuntu breaks ABI now (or if they do parallel
installs),
but doesn't use gtkmm 3.18 until the next Ubuntu version
it looks like now is the time.
Overall, I think now is the time to break ABI. We won't have another
chance until GTK+ 4, which might never happen. I think we should combine
this with using and requiring C++11, to get that out of the way too. I
suspect that using C++11 would cause ABI breaks too
ABI. We won't have another
chance until GTK+ 4, which might never happen. I think we should combine
this with using and requiring C++11, to get that out of the way too. I
suspect that using C++11 would cause ABI breaks too, but plenty of
better-informed people doubt that, so I'm just being
. I think we should combine
this with using and requiring C++11, to get that out of the way too. I
suspect that using C++11 would cause ABI breaks too, but plenty of
better-informed people doubt that, so I'm just being pessimistic.
Does anyone object to the ABI break?
--
Murray Cumming
murr
Am 30.06.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Murray Cumming:
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 12:16 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:06:46 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
I would guess that it is because fedora is a fast moving distribution
and they like to press ahead with what
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 12:16 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:06:46 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:32:43 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 12:06 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
And would you agree that Ubuntu (for instance) will have to do the
same thing when C++11 (--std=c++11) becomes the default in g++ 6,
when they use g++ 6?
No. Assuming gcc-6 still provides libstdc++ with both ABIs (my
guess
to choose for its C++
binaries.
Using C++11 in gtkmm for anything interesting will lead to an ABI break
- apps that have been built against gtkmm will stop running when their
gtkmm is replaced with out C++11 gtkmm.
Will they really stop running? I guess they will continue to run,
because the C++11
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 17:18 +0200, Kjell Ahlstedt wrote:
There are lots of ABI breaks that we'd like to do: Remove
no_default_handler in many _WRAP_SIGNAL(), add new data members to
Glib::ObjectBase, Glib::Source, xmlpp:Parser and probably other
classes, rename the sigc::nil struct, etc. Just
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 19:44 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
[snip]
Fedora 23, which will use gcc-5.1 with the new ABI, will have to
recompile all its C++ binaries (libraries and programs)[1], for all
versions of C++ those libraries and programs may happen to use.
[snip]
And would you agree that
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:32:43 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 19:44 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
[snip]
Fedora 23, which will use gcc-5.1 with the new ABI, will have to
recompile all its C++ binaries
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:06:46 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:32:43 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 19:44 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
[snip]
Fedora 23,
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:22:38 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
[snip]
It looks like Ubuntu does plan to use gcc 5 in Ubuntu 15.10 (in
development now):
http://summit.ubuntu.com/uos-1505/meeting/22506/gcc-5-update-for-1510/
though it's currently still using gcc 4.9.2:
On 06/29/2015 08:18 AM, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Sun, 2015-06-28 at 20:30 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:28 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
Given that --std=c+11 breaks ABI compatibility (at least in the
standard library), I wonder if/when distros would
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 14:43 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 06/29/2015 02:27 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 12:03 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
All of Fedora 23 (scheduled for release this October / November) is
built with the new C++11 ABI.
Interesting. Thanks. Is there
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 14:53 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 14:43 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 06/29/2015 02:27 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 12:03 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
All of Fedora 23 (scheduled for release this October / November) is
built
On 06/29/2015 02:54 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 14:53 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 14:43 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 06/29/2015 02:27 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 12:03 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
All of Fedora 23 (scheduled for
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:22:27 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
(Sorry, I'm trying to keep this very simple.)
I don't know if Firefox depends on any other C++11 libraries so it
might not be the example I'm looking for.
Another for-instance question:
Ubuntu 15.04 (Vidid
On 06/29/2015 02:27 PM, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 12:03 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
All of Fedora 23 (scheduled for release this October / November) is
built with the new C++11 ABI.
Interesting. Thanks. Is there some official Fedora page about that?
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 08:18:12 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Sun, 2015-06-28 at 20:30 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:28 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
Given that --std=c+11 breaks ABI compatibility (at least in the
standard
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 12:03 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
All of Fedora 23 (scheduled for release this October / November) is
built with the new C++11 ABI.
Interesting. Thanks. Is there some official Fedora page about that?
--
Murray Cumming
murr...@murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 11:08 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 08:18:12 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Sun, 2015-06-28 at 20:30 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:28 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
Given that --std=c+11
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 12:03:04 +0200
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/29/2015 08:18 AM, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Sun, 2015-06-28 at 20:30 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:28 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
Given that --std=c+11 breaks ABI
for a few simple API changes.
3.
This opportunity is right now. Maybe gtkmm 3.18 should be the one that
requires C++11. I wish that all distros were using C++11 at once, when
it became standard in g++, but Fedora forces us to jump on board now.
GTK+ 3.18 will be API stable around the middle/end
too many big API
changes, and they'd be right to blame us for them, but people would
forgive us for a few simple API changes.
3.
This opportunity is right now. Maybe gtkmm 3.18 should be the one that
requires C++11. I wish that all distros were using C++11 at once, when
it became standard
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 17:00:44 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
[snip]
Personally, it feels unwise for Fedora to build everything with
--std=c ++11 if their compiler isn't going to use that by default.
That's going to confuse developers who get weird errors when they
don't specify
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 18:57 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but this is wrong. Using
the gcc-5.1 ABI does not require you to compile C++ code with the
-std=c++11 flag,
Ah, thanks.
and there is no proposal that fedora should do so.
From that point of
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 20:08:17 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 18:57 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but this is wrong.
Using the gcc-5.1 ABI does not require you to compile C++ code with
the -std=c++11 flag,
Ah,
On Sun, 2015-06-28 at 20:30 +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:28 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
Given that --std=c+11 breaks ABI compatibility (at least in the
standard library), I wonder if/when distros would ever build glibmm
with C++11 support.
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 13:17 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 09:27 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-05/msg00075.html.
I don't see any reply to your question. So I'm still stuck with wanting
to use C++11 but having a big official
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 20:17:28 +0200
Murray Cumming murr...@murrayc.com wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 13:17 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 09:27 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-05/msg00075.html.
I don't see any reply to your
On Wed, 2015-06-24 at 09:27 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-05/msg00075.html.
I don't see any reply to your question. So I'm still stuck with wanting
to use C++11 but having a big official warning telling me not to.
Nevertheless, maybe we can do some
38 matches
Mail list logo
