Re: Which C++ language version?

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

Re: Which C++ language version?

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: >>

Re: Back to OpenOffice

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

Re: Memory management strategy

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

Re: Back to OpenOffice

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

Re: Which C++ language version?

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

Which C++ language version?

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:

Error CS1548 on Windows 10 1709 (was: Re: Back to OpenOffice)

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

Re: Memory management strategy

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

Re: Memory management strategy

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

Re: Memory management strategy

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

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

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

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

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

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

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

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

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.

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

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

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

> 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

Re: Memory management strategy

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

Memory management strategy

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

Re: Back to OpenOffice

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

Re: Back to OpenOffice

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

Blogging

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

Re: Back to OpenOffice

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

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

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

Re: Does AOO 4.2.x need new system requirements?

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

Re: Win64 port started, and how building 32 bit AOO on Win64 could break soon

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