I agree, it's ugly. I like portability, I happily commit things that reduce dependency on gcc as they can save us trouble down the road and _also_ often make the code cleaner. But I really do not like the idea of making things ugly to shut up a specific buggy compiler that we mostly don't use. Send them the code and tell them to fix their stuff instead ;)
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 01:59:19PM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > I really don't like this patch. It is clearly to fix an issue with the > MSVC compiler. I would feel the same way about any other compiler as > well. We should not have to jump through hoops to support every broken > compiler. I still see no reason to change the policy to support MSVC or > any other compiler for that matter. > > On 5/28/2016 7:26 PM, Cirilo Bernardo wrote: > > This may be a little off-topic, but the POSIX compliance of MSVC > > has improved quite a bit and cross-platform support is no longer > > the nightmare that it was 10 years ago. Even 4 years ago I would > > have said supporting MSVC would be crazy, if not because of the > > cross-platform nuisances then because it was not a tool accessible > > to the general public. For the past few years Microsoft have been > > making MSVS/MSVC available free of charge to individuals and > > small businesses so I would now consider the tool as available to > > the general public, and the POSIX compliance has been at a point > > where there aren't too many cross-platform issues other than in > > the GUI, which for us is abstracted through wxWidgets. So I think > > we should reconsider MSVC support at some stage. I for one would > > prefer an MSVC build to an MSys/MinGW build. For me MSys/MinGW > > has always been a tremendous nuisance and not something I would > > ever install if I had an alternative, and I believe the MS tools are > > good enough and available enough at the moment. > > > > - Cirilo > > > > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Chris Pavlina <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > I'm not going to commit this one without approval, since we've > > already stated > > we're not going to support MSVC. > > > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 04:32:54PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > > > > > > The combination of > > > - template resolution > > > - optimization > > > - structured exception handling > > > - chained operator= > > > > > > appears to trigger a bug in the compiler. > > > > > > As this code is nonsensical anyway (numeric_limits<>::min() > > returns the > > > smallest positive value for floating point types, but the largest > > negative > > > value for integral types), it should probably be rewritten. > > > > > > This change just avoids the compiler bug, though. > > > --- > > > include/math/box2.h | 8 ++++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > > Post to : [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > > Post to : [email protected] > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
