Dear Kostas and Getfem users,
I agree that we should give it a thought, but regarding the argument on
Getfem users using older versions of Linux.
I, from my side still have Ubuntu 12.04 and run gcc 4.6.3 (at home), but I
enable most of the C++11 features using
-std=c++0x or -std=gnu++0x compiler options. And I didn't upgrade my Linux
for a few years now (I think).
Yet, similar to you, Kostas, I also propose to take the opinion of people
who will have a problem with this dependency, but
lets hear if there are any. So, may be, given Yves announcement, we could
wait for a week or two, if there is anybody
against this move. If not, we go ahead. Do you agree?
Best regards,
Andriy
On 19 March 2014 20:16, Konstantinos Poulios <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I had interpreted Andriy's question, as if getfem++ should use C++11 by
> default or not. I now see that the actual question is if it is ok for
> getfem++ to depend on C++11. My opinion is that at some point soon or later
> getfem++ (like also many other software projects) will depend on C++11
> anyway. So the actual question is when.
>
> A dependence on C++11 will not affect me personally and packaging for
> future Linux distribution is not a problem either because most of them come
> with gcc 4.8 anyway. One problem that I see is with people that may need to
> compile getfem++ on e.g. university clusters with older linux distributions
> like Ubuntu 12.04 and CentOS. I think it is common for university clusters
> to run on outdated --some call it stable-- linux distributions with older
> compiler versions. So making C++11 a hard dependence may affect some people
> for the next 1-2 years or so.
>
> I think a realistic approach is to release the next version (soon) without
> depending on C++11 and merge all C++11 specific features just after the
> release. In any case I would recommend to give it a more technical thought
> before doing the switch, in the sense that Yves mentioned in his email.
>
> Btw. some code clean up would also be very welcome but I think this also
> fits better after the next stable release.
>
> Best regards
>
> Kostas
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Yves Renard <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> What made me hesitate to definitely switch to C++11 is the fact that the
>> version of gcc on the stable release of Ubuntu (2012) is gcc 4.6.4. that
>> does not support C++11. Consequently, caution rather led me to wait a
>> little longer (namely 2017 the next stable version of Ubuntu). In
>> addition, I did not personally need the new features of C++11 for the
>> moment (of course, I would not have developed the library gmm in the
>> same way with the features of C++11 if it had been available in the early
>> 2000s!).
>> But of course, I understand Andriy who sees the interest to use these new
>> features. Three years is a little bit long. I am not against the switch but
>> it will force us to use at least gcc 4.8 and force the update of a few
>> things in the code (such as obsolescence of auto_ptr).
>>
>> In conclusion, has anybody some further arguments against the switch ?
>>
>> If not, I think I will check carrefully the compatibility of Getfem
>> sources to gcc 4.8 and enforce C++11 ...
>>
>> Yves.
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 19/03/2014 12:08, Andriy Andreykiv a écrit :
>>
>> Dear Kostas and Getfem users,
>>
>> At our company we build Getfem on Windows with Intel C++ as well as
>> MSVS 2012 C++
>> and on Linux with GCC 4.81. As far as I know Clang supports 11th standard
>> too.
>> These are major C++ compilers (correct me if I"m wrong) and all of them
>> happily support major C++11 features.
>>
>> What you, Kostas, are proposing, about conditional compilation of 11th
>> features, sure possible, but
>> is really a big burden to maintain, at least for our side. Imagine if I
>> use Lambda's and auto's and then
>> I have to conditionally provide code for the case C++11 is not enabled,
>> then I have to sometimes
>> re-design several functions. If I have to do that, then I have no reasons
>> to use 11th features at all.
>> I do use conditional compilation now and then, during implementation of
>> multithreaded assembly.
>> It, sure, makes sense for performance reasons, but C++11 is always
>> available and not such a reason.
>>
>> Given the above I would propose to Getfem community to have 11th
>> standard enforced by default,
>> and allow code that compiles only with C++11 on. Please tell me what
>> you think about this.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Andriy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 March 2014 11:17, Konstantinos Poulios <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Andriy,
>>>
>>> actually the intention of my change was getfem to support C++11 by
>>> default if the compiler supports it by default.
>>>
>>> Are you using msvc or gcc? I thought that my change would affect only
>>> compiling with gcc which officially does not support c++11 by default.
>>>
>>> Even with gcc one can still enable c++11 by adding the appropriate
>>> CXXFLAGS at running the configure script.
>>>
>>> Within getfem we just need to use
>>> #if __cplusplus > 199711L
>>> #endif
>>> conditionals for features that depend on C++11.
>>>
>>> Is there any practical issue that I am forgetting here?
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Kostas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Andriy Andreykiv <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Getfem users,
>>>>
>>>> Currently, Getfem is configured by default not to support C++11
>>>> (revision 4536).
>>>> May I ask why? I would really want to have it supported. I like to use
>>>> lambda's auto's and the new for loop syntax in my code, but,
>>>> more importantly, C++11 includes libraries that otherwise have to be
>>>> included through Boost (I'm using at least <thread> and <atomic>)
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Andriy
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Getfem-users mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Getfem-users mailing
>> [email protected]https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Yves Renard ([email protected]) tel : (33) 04.72.43.87.08
>> Pole de Mathematiques, INSA-Lyon fax : (33) 04.72.43.85.29
>> 20, rue Albert Einstein
>> 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, FRANCE
>> http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~renard
>>
>> ---------
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Getfem-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
