Jonathan Polley writes: > I have a few questions brought about by some recent experiences, but > what they boil down to is "Are we going to reestablish the minimun > system requirements for FlightGear." > > First, due to deficiencies in the compiler, it is becoming more and > more difficult to build FlightGear under MSVC 6.0. MSVC 6.0 cannot > built the 3D cloud code so that it is debuggable (at least under my > setup), but is CAN compile a non-debug version (this has happened > with other modules, too, so it is not just a problem with the 3D > clouds). These errors are not even compiler errors, but are library > errors (go figure). There have also been edits to FlightGear simply > because MSVC 6.0 can't handle certain C++ constructs. Do we want to > continue to modify the code to support this compiler? If so, for > how much longer?
Does MS have something newer people can migrate to that works better? I guess the MSVC developers will have to decide what can and can't be done and make a decision about the best course of action. Generally, building with more compilers and platforms is good for a project, but it is annoying to have to make ugly code concessions to the stragglers (not that MSVC falls into this category.) > Due to changes in OS libraries, Darrel's current MacOS X application > runs under version 10.2 but not 10.1.X. I will be building a 10.1.X > version this weekend, but I am hoping that 10.1 can be dropped > within the next six months to a year. If people can reasonably upgrade to 10.2 and we clearly document that FlightGear requires version 10.2, then I don't see a huge problem with that. > Is there, or will there be, a plan to transition away from gcc 2.95 > to 3.x? If so, any ideas as to the time frame? MacOS X 10.2 uses > gcc 3.1.1 so I hope there isn't a requirement for gcc 3.2 for a > while. It's my sense that gcc 3.x.x tends to be pickier than 2.95, so I'm not aware of needing to do stupid/ugly code tricks to suppport 2.95. That being the case, I don't feel the need to go out of my way to find something to break the gcc-2.95 compiler, we'd probably break things for other compilers in the proces. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
