FYI
As per https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/205305/ MSVC2013 is no longer in
the CI.
--
Alex
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
On quarta-feira, 20 de dezembro de 2017 06:49:40 PST Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> Sounds good, +1, good riddance.
+1
With the drop of QNX 6.6, we'll finally be C++11 core language feature-
complete, only ~7 years after it came out. Fortunately, those numbers seem to
be coming down. We should be a
On 20 December 2017 at 16:17, Lars Knoll wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> here are the promised numbers:
> *Version*
> *Compiler*
> *Commercial*
>
> *Version*
> *Compiler*
> *Opensource*
> 5.10.0
> MinGW530
> 22 %
>
> 5.10.0
> MinGW530
> 25 %
> 5.10.0
> MSVC2013_64
> 14 %
>
> 5.10.0
> MSVC2013_64
> 15 %
> 5.
Hi all,
here are the promised numbers:
Version
Compiler
Commercial
Version
Compiler
Opensource
5.10.0
MinGW530
22 %
5.10.0
MinGW530
25 %
5.10.0
MSVC2013_64
14 %
5.10.0
MSVC2013_64
15 %
5.10.0
MSVC2015
20 %
5.10.0
MSVC2015
18 %
5.10.0
MSVC2015_64
20 %
5.10.0
MSVC2015_64
Hi,
Akseli will check the percentages from Qt 5.10 online installer later this
week.
Yours,
Tuukka
On 16/12/2017, 18.25, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 10:57:32 PST Alex Blasche wrote:
> Sorry, no. As mentioned during the co
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 10:57:32 PST Alex Blasche wrote:
> Sorry, no. As mentioned during the contributor summit, this decision is
> tabled until we have the 5.10 download figures.
Any numbers now?
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source
Rutledge; Jani Heikkinen
Cc: Thiago Macieira; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Dropping of MSVC 2013
>From: Shawn Rutledge
>> On 18 Oct 2017, at 07:34, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
>> We discussed about this last spring and then the decision was that 5.10 is
>> too
>From: Shawn Rutledge
>> On 18 Oct 2017, at 07:34, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
>> We discussed about this last spring and then the decision was that 5.10 is
>> too early but 5.11 might be possible.
> So can we get that done soon on dev branch?
Sorry, no. As mentioned during the contributor summit, t
al Message-
>> From: Development [mailto:development-
>> bounces+jani.heikkinen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
>> Sent: keskiviikko 18. lokakuuta 2017 7.51
>> To: development@qt-project.org
>> Subject: [Development] Dropping of MSVC 2013
>>
On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 23:35:17 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
> Since you need the patch to work on 5.10, I think we’ll need a workaround
> for VS2013.
Ok. Working around the lack of unrestricted unions is easy. But I will need to
perform a more complete test tomorrow to see if it compiles and nothi
> On 18 Oct 2017, at 07:43, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 22:25:34 PDT Philippe wrote:
>>> We were. I'm asking for a quicker decision now, to decide whether I need
>>> to
>>> invest time making QRandomGenerator deterministic mode work on MSVC 2013.
>>
>> Did you conside
On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 22:25:34 PDT Philippe wrote:
> > We were. I'm asking for a quicker decision now, to decide whether I need
> > to
> > invest time making QRandomGenerator deterministic mode work on MSVC 2013.
>
> Did you consider having a policy such as "Feature X is only available
> for
keskiviikko 18. lokakuuta 2017 7.51
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: [Development] Dropping of MSVC 2013
>
> This came up again in QtCS and we decided that dropping it soon is probably a
> good idea, especially after Qt 5.9 became LTS.
>
> Did we decide on 5.1
> We were. I'm asking for a quicker decision now, to decide whether I need to
> invest time making QRandomGenerator deterministic mode work on MSVC 2013.
Did you consider having a policy such as "Feature X is only available
for compilers that suports Y" ? (to use sparingly, of course)
Philippe
On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 21:54:40 PDT Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> On 18 October 2017 at 07:51, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> > This came up again in QtCS and we decided that dropping it soon is
> > probably a good idea, especially after Qt 5.9 became LTS.
> >
> > Did we decide on 5.10 or 5.11?
> >
On 18 October 2017 at 07:51, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> This came up again in QtCS and we decided that dropping it soon is probably a
> good idea, especially after Qt 5.9 became LTS.
>
> Did we decide on 5.10 or 5.11?
>
> Because one of my changes for 5.10 is currently failing on MSVC 2013 as
> desi
This came up again in QtCS and we decided that dropping it soon is probably a
good idea, especially after Qt 5.9 became LTS.
Did we decide on 5.10 or 5.11?
Because one of my changes for 5.10 is currently failing on MSVC 2013 as
designed. I need to refactor it for it to compile there.
Do I need
17 matches
Mail list logo