Dear Yves,
As you can see, for instance, from this document
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html
gcc 4.6 supports most of the features (yes, not all). At least it supports
all that I currently use: atomic's, lambda's, auto's, range based for-loop.
Regarding your question if it's stable, well, I propose to call it stable
as long as the code can be compiled with good diagnostics and it can pass
Getfem tests. Additionally, here, in our company, we daily run a large
number of tests, so if we notice anything broken, we'll let Getfem users
know as well.
But I would like to say that I am not "pushing" :) . If any of Getfem users
has a desire to wait a bit, I don't mind.
Best regards,
Andriy
On 20 March 2014 13:59, Yves Renard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I was thinking to release a version this summer (may be the 5.0 if new
> assembly and new time stepping are sufficiently developped and an
> intermediary version 4.3 if not).
> So the question seems to be either to adopt C++11 standard before or after
> this release.
>
> Andriy, do you think that gcc 4.6.3 with the option -std=c++0x is a stable
> enough implementation of what you presently use of the c++11 new facilities
> ?
> If yes, I think we can rapidly switch to the new standard. If not, I think
> that Kostas is right, the better would be to wait a bit (about 4 months),
> release the new version with the old standard and then switch to c++11.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Yves.
>
>
>
> Le 20/03/2014 11:37, Andriy Andreykiv a écrit :
>
> 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
>>>
>>> ---------
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
