On 26 Mar, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Don't we use C++ 2003?
Good question. That version is not listed here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html
Under the C++98 section it does mention that the 2003 modifications are
supported with -std=c++98 and -std=gnu++98.
That version is also not li
On 26 Mar, Peter kovacs wrote:
> I had to build with -std=c++11 on gcc 7.
> C++98 did not work as far as I remeber.
> C++17 did lead also to failure I believe.
>
> So I think we use features from the partial support already.
I think we are depending on some GNU extensions to C++98, so our code is
Don't we use C++ 2003?
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
> I had to build with -std=c++11 on gcc 7.
> C++98 did not work as far as I remeber.
> C++17 did lead also to failure I believe.
>
> So I think we use features from the partial support already.
>
> Am 26. März 2018 03:03
I had to build with -std=c++11 on gcc 7.
C++98 did not work as far as I remeber.
C++17 did lead also to failure I believe.
So I think we use features from the partial support already.
Am 26. März 2018 03:03:56 MESZ schrieb Don Lewis :
>On 25 Mar, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> What version of the C+
As of 1827739, the main/jvmaccess problem seems fixed, so AOO32 should be
building on Windows64 again (without any special settings).
Welcome back Patricia :).
Damjan
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Hi Patricia,
>
> Am 24.03.2018 um 13:54 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>
A related problem to consider is the generally poor runtime environment
support for using C++ between modules. On Windows, using C++ between
different DLLs requires they were built by the same MSVC version and used
the same CRT runtime settings, and I am finding that for the main/jvmaccess
module t
On 3/24/2018 6:10 AM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
You can try revision 1827295, I could build it successfully with this
configuration:
https://home.apache.org/~mseidel/AOO-builds/AOO-420-Test/ReadMe.txt
Later revisions seem to be broken (on Windows) for the moment.
The step-by-step lists the Wind
On 25 Mar, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> What version of the C++ standard should we code to?
At least for now, C++ 98. The version of gcc in CentOS 6 only has
partial support for C++ 0x.
Our Windows build instructions currently recommend a 2007 version of the
compiler and libraries, which predate t
What version of the C++ standard should we code to?
For example, can the move to STL use features that were added in C++ 11?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h.
Am 25.03.2018 um 15:05 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>
>> My current plan is to leave the Windows 8.1 machine where I have been
>> doing most of my development set up for 32-bit builds on the 4.1 line
>> in case of security problems. Meanwhile, I am setting up a Windows 10
>> machine to do trunk builds
On 3/25/2018 10:44 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Somewhat related ...
>
> I have been considering the use of APR pools:
>
> http://www.apachetutor.org/dev/pools
>
> It would be great to have the memory managed by the same technology used
> in Apache httpd.
I need to think about this. It seems v
On 25.03.2018 21:28, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
On 3/25/2018 10:44 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Somewhat related ...
I have been considering the use of APR pools:
http://www.apachetutor.org/dev/pools
It would be great to have the memory managed by the same technology
used in Apache httpd.
I need
On 3/25/2018 10:44 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Somewhat related ...
I have been considering the use of APR pools:
http://www.apachetutor.org/dev/pools
It would be great to have the memory managed by the same technology used
in Apache httpd.
I need to think about this. It seems very appropriate
On 03/25/2018 02:47 AM, Peter kovacs wrote:
Well the Java section seems to need updated. I think we are now at 1.7 or 1.8
right? Or do we still support 1.5 & 1.6? Don't think so. (And no body uses
those versions I guess)
On Windows we agreed on continued support of Windows XP. However should
Somewhat related ...
I have been considering the use of APR pools:
http://www.apachetutor.org/dev/pools
It would be great to have the memory managed by the same technology used
in Apache httpd.
Cheers,
Pedro.
-
To unsubs
At a seconed thought maybe it is to early for the recommandation page. I
really can not wait when they hit beta stage. :-)
Maybe a blogpost which tells about the migration to MVCS14 we could
mention reactOS and that we keep win XP binary format for now.
That is maybe better.
On 25.03.2018 18:0
Am 25.03.2018 um 17:52 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 25.03.2018 um 17:28 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>> Am 25.03.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Pedro Lino:
On March 25, 2018 at 12:32 PM Marcus wrote:
I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
this would look like as we have
Am 25.03.2018 um 17:28 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Am 25.03.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Pedro Lino:
On March 25, 2018 at 12:32 PM Marcus wrote:
I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
this would look like as we have built and tested on this platform. As we
haven't done this
Am 25.03.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Pedro Lino:
>> On March 25, 2018 at 12:32 PM Marcus wrote:
>> I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
>> this would look like as we have built and tested on this platform. As we
>> haven't done this we should avoid this misunderstandin
> On March 25, 2018 at 12:32 PM Marcus wrote:
> I tend to agree but the wording is important. With "official support"
> this would look like as we have built and tested on this platform. As we
> haven't done this we should avoid this misunderstanding.
>
> Instead we can say in a different for
Documents that are to large for the memory available will also fail to
load in the 1st approach.
To add array review mechanism is in my opinion only a source of errors.
I think STL should be used.
+1 for not hiding the exceptions. Maybe we could catch exception on
document level quickly and pr
Currently, AOO uses a lot of finite size arrays. Ideally, overflows will
be detected and lead to an error message, but that still prevents
processing of the user's documents.
Computer memories and swap spaces are still increasing in size, so the
array size limits are more likely to be the limi
Am 25.03.2018 um 14:41 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>
>
> On 3/25/2018 4:41 AM, Marcus wrote:
>> Am 24.03.2018 um 14:10 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>>
>>> Am 24.03.2018 um 13:54 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
I've finished traveling for a while, and am ready to get back to work
on OpenOffice 4.2
On 3/25/2018 4:41 AM, Marcus wrote:
Am 24.03.2018 um 14:10 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Am 24.03.2018 um 13:54 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
I've finished traveling for a while, and am ready to get back to work
on OpenOffice 4.2
Welcome back, I hope you had a good time! ;-)
welceome back. I hop
Will do. I'll try to initially pick arrays that have relatively limited
scope. The highest risk seem to be those that are filled during document
open - those are the ones where a malicious actor might be able to force
an array overflow.
On 3/25/2018 4:10 AM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
Welcome back P
Hello all,
I want to blog some stuff, I have decided last week somewhere. But
reallity is faster then I am. So I just wanted to have a look at the
blog tool.
However when I logged in I registered as a new user. Now the blog site
does not know I want to blog something in OOO.
How do I use th
Am 24.03.2018 um 14:10 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
Am 24.03.2018 um 13:54 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
I've finished traveling for a while, and am ready to get back to work
on OpenOffice 4.2
Welcome back, I hope you had a good time! ;-)
welceome back. I hope you have enjoyed your travel and are
Am 25.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Peter kovacs:
Well the Java section seems to need updated. I think we are now at 1.7 or 1.8
right? Or do we still support 1.5 & 1.6? Don't think so. (And no body uses
those versions I guess)
On Windows we agreed on continued support of Windows XP. However should
Am 25.03.2018 um 09:16 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> I think I fixed this in 1827695.
Thanks!
>
> Windows still won't build due to a problem in jvmaccess that I am still
> investigating.
Yes, I think that came with revision 1827615:
make: *** No rule to make target
'/cygdrive/e/slave14/aoo-win7/
Welcome back Patricia!
Can we prepare in the next week's 1 or 2 array translation tasks?
I have 2 junior candidates and if they get there I would like to hand them one
of them as an entry point to development.
Going step by step.
All the best
Peter
Am 24. März 2018 14:16:24 MEZ schrieb Patrici
Well the Java section seems to need updated. I think we are now at 1.7 or 1.8
right? Or do we still support 1.5 & 1.6? Don't think so. (And no body uses
those versions I guess)
On Windows we agreed on continued support of Windows XP. However should we
maybe add ReactOS as official support?
I am
I think I fixed this in 1827695.
Windows still won't build due to a problem in jvmaccess that I am still
investigating.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Matthias Seidel wrote:
> Correction, BuildBot says Revision 1827459.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthias
>
>
> Am 23.03.2018 um 17:23 schrieb Matthias
32 matches
Mail list logo
