Andres, Have you tried compiling GDAL 1.11 as C++11? I used GDAL 1.11 built as C++11 for quite a while before switching to GDAL 2.x. We aren't talking about changing the internal API for drivers. Or am I missing something?
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Andrew C Aitchison <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Dec 2016, Kurt Schwehr wrote: > > I would like to continue the C++11 discussion over the next couple weeks >> while many people are on slower development cycles with a proposal: >> >> * Starting 2017-Mar-01, we switch GDAL trunk to require C++11 support from >> the compiler. >> * All prior branches would stick with their existing requirements for >> C++03 >> support >> > ... ... > >> This would not be a free-for-all on C++11 features. I think we would want >> to just start with removing some of the macros and workarounds that are >> currently in the code base. Until we decide to go forward with other >> features, the main changes that would happen in C++ only code after this >> would be: >> >> - Change NULL to nullptr >> - Drop virtual when using the override keyword (this becomes a req with >> C++17) >> - CPL_OVERRIDE -> override >> - Remove HAVE_CXX11 #ifs >> - And maybe some other things I missed >> > > Are there many people maintaining/developing *plugin* drivers for gdal > - I know of the ECW plugins; are there any others ? > > I am working on a couple of private drivers for proprietary formats, > and find it useful that I can use the same source to build plugins for > GDAL 1.11 and 2.1.2. > > Would the changes to nullptr, CPL_OVERRIDE etc. make it harder to maintain > plugin code for old and new versions of GDAL ? > > -- > Andrew C Aitchison > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev > -- -- http://schwehr.org
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
