Any vendors that have bought into VFX Platform (Autodesk, Foundry, SESI) should
in theory have been on C++11 since last year (and should be on board for C++14
for any products coming in 2018).
We're only talking about moving forward, so a stray downstream product stuck on
C++03 can keep using OpenEXR <= 2.2.
I'll give it a couple days to see if there are objections before I do any of
the actual work. But it will be cleaner and easier if we can just assume C++11
as a minimum.
> On Aug 10, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Piotr Stanczyk <piotr.stanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are there any vendors for whom this would cause an issue? Else, I would vote
> for moving things forward
> On 10 August 2017 at 10:18, Larry Gritz <l...@larrygritz.com
> <mailto:l...@larrygritz.com>> wrote:
> Ugh, so it's worse than I thought.
> I suppose I'm willing to fix and submit a patch to address this.
> Do I need to put in the proper macros to make it compile on everything from
> C++03 through 17? Does anybody want to argue for continuing to maintain C++03
> compatibility for future OpenEXR releases, or is it finally time (six years
> after the C++ standard and 2+ years after VFXPlatform) to raise the floor to
> -- lg
>> On Aug 9, 2017, at 11:38 PM, Werner Benger <wer...@cct.lsu.edu
>> <mailto:wer...@cct.lsu.edu>> wrote:
>> It should be noted that dynamic expressions are actually forbidden in C++17,
>> so OpenEXR does no longer compile with GCC 7.1 when std C++17 is enabled.
>> The highest C++ version that can be used to compile it is C++14, where it's
>> still just a warning, while in C++17 it's an error. It would be good to have
>> OpenEXR at least compilable in C++17. Major C++ libraries such as QT are
>> using C++11 nowadays, so it seems pretty safe to go beyond C++03 for modern
>> applications, a lot of things are indeed much easier.
>> On 10.08.2017 00:20, Larry Gritz wrote:
>>> In a test compile with gcc 7, I get lots of errors of the following ilk:
>>> /home/travis/build/lgritz/openexr/IlmBase/Imath/ImathVec.h:228:34: warning:
>>> dynamic exception specifications are deprecated in C++11 [-Wdeprecated]
>>> const Vec2 & normalizeExc () throw (IEX_NAMESPACE::MathExc);
>>> I can disable this particular warning, of course, but it's worth noting
>>> that the OpenEXR code base is not C++11 compliant. But in addition to using
>>> some C++03 idioms that are deprecated in C++11, perhaps more importantly,
>>> the code is not taking advantage of new features such as move semantics,
>>> constexpr, nothrow, and others. For the Imath classes especially, using
>>> some of these may actually confer a performance benefit.
>>> I feel kind of bad pointing this out while not really having the time at
>>> the moment to code up and submit an actual patch myself, but I thought I'd
>>> at least open the topic and see where the community stands on the issue of
>>> how and when to upgrade to C++11 and if it's important for modern OpenEXR
>>> to continue to support C++03. For point of reference, the VFX Reference
>>> Platform [http://www.vfxplatform.com/ <http://www.vfxplatform.com/>]
>>> dictated C++11 for 2016 and 2017, and will be C++14 for 2018.
>>> -- lg
>>> Larry Gritz
>>> l...@larrygritz.com <mailto:l...@larrygritz.com>
>>> Openexr-devel mailing list
>>> Openexremail@example.com <mailto:Openexrfirstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Dr. Werner Benger Visualization Research
>> Center for Computation & Technology at Louisiana State University (CCT/LSU)
>> 2019 Digital Media Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
>> Tel.: +1 225 578 4809 <tel:(225)%20578-4809> Fax.: +1
>> 225 578-5362 <tel:(225)%20578-5362>
>> Openexr-devel mailing list
>> Openexremail@example.com <mailto:Openexrfirstname.lastname@example.org>
> Larry Gritz
> l...@larrygritz.com <mailto:l...@larrygritz.com>
> Openexr-devel mailing list
> Openexremail@example.com <mailto:Openexrfirstname.lastname@example.org>
Openexr-devel mailing list