On sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2016 10:03:22 PST Blasche Alexander wrote:
> >Because you also need to reject some older Clang versions. Did you add the
> >check for them too?
>
> clang 3.4 is rejected by requires(c++11) already.
It shouldn't be. Clang 3.4 is C++11-feature-complete.
I was thinking
>Because you also need to reject some older Clang versions. Did you add the
>check for them too?
clang 3.4 is rejected by requires(c++11) already.
>Please think of Clang on Linux and FreeBSD, plus the older XCode that we still
>support on OS X. This is LTS and the last version before we require C
03.03.2016, 20:15, "Welbourne Edward" :
>> Why do we insist on testing for something that proxies the real need?
>> We need X and we know that Y provides X, so we test for Y. Why can't
>> we just test for X?
>
> Indeed. It reminds me of the web-sites that used to test with a few
> browsers and
> Why do we insist on testing for something that proxies the real need?
> We need X and we know that Y provides X, so we test for Y. Why can't
> we just test for X?
Indeed. It reminds me of the web-sites that used to test with a few
browsers and refuse access to anything but the known-good versio
On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 16:39:28 PST Blasche Alexander wrote:
> > On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 08:12:25 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Anything below gcc 4.7 is excluded now. I see little point in making such
> fine-grained test. IMO the result is not worth the effort. The module
>
--
Alex
> On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 08:12:25 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Please add a test for each of the specific C++11 features, not for the
> > compiler version. My email with the build errors lists them all, in
> > addition to NSDMI.
>
> To be clear: one config.test that hap
On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 08:12:25 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Please add a test for each of the specific C++11 features, not for the
> compiler version. My email with the build errors lists them all, in
> addition to NSDMI.
To be clear: one config.test that happens to test each of the
On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 08:48:12 PST Knoll Lars wrote:
> And require(c++11) doesn't prevent things to be compiled for gcc 4.6?
Correct.
Please add a test for each of the specific C++11 features, not for the compiler
version. My email with the build errors lists them all, in addition
On 03/03/16 09:35, "Olivier Goffart" wrote:
>Am Donnerstag, 3. März 2016, 08:24:41 CET schrieb Knoll Lars:
>> On 03/03/16 09:12, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
>> > of thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 08:05:41 PST Knoll Lars wro
Am Donnerstag, 3. März 2016, 08:24:41 CET schrieb Knoll Lars:
> On 03/03/16 09:12, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
> of thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 08:05:41 PST Knoll Lars wrote:
> >
> >> This looks good.
> >
> >
> >It's good, but
On 03/03/16 09:12, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 08:05:41 PST Knoll Lars wrote:
>> This looks good.
>
>It's good, but not sufficient.
How is it not sufficient?
Lars
___
Development mailing l
On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 08:05:41 PST Knoll Lars wrote:
> This looks good.
It's good, but not sufficient.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
___
Development mailing
t;
>Kai
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Development [mailto:development-
>> bounces+kai.koehne=theqtcompany@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
>> Thiago Macieira
>> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:54 AM
>> To: development@qt-project.org
>> Subject: Re
On 03/03/16 08:54, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 07:50:51 PST Knoll Lars wrote:
>> >It matters because it breaks the build.
>> >
>> >Please remove it from the build. It's ok for it to be present, but don't
>> >compile it.
>>
>>
>>
> Thiago Macieira
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:54 AM
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Dropping qtserialbus from Qt 5.6 -- it doesn't
> compile in C++98
>
> On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 07:50:51 PST Knoll Lars wrote:
> >
On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 07:50:51 PST Knoll Lars wrote:
> >It matters because it breaks the build.
> >
> >Please remove it from the build. It's ok for it to be present, but don't
> >compile it.
>
>
> Which build are you talking about? The split source packages shouldn't have
> a probl
On 03/03/16 08:31, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 07:05:10 PST Heikkinen Jani wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> QtSerialBus is a technology preview in 5.6 and so on this shouldn't matter
>> that much, right? This "limitation" should be acceptable f
On quinta-feira, 3 de março de 2016 07:05:10 PST Heikkinen Jani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> QtSerialBus is a technology preview in 5.6 and so on this shouldn't matter
> that much, right? This "limitation" should be acceptable for TPs and so on
> adding this in known issues page (https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_5.6.0_K
l Message-
>>From: Development [mailto:development-
>>bounces+jani.heikkinen=theqtcompany@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of
>>Thiago Macieira
>>Sent: 3. maaliskuuta 2016 8:59
>>To: development@qt-project.org
>>Subject: [Development] Dropping qtserialbus from
The code was written for C++11 only and there isn't enough time to fix the
build issues. Therefore, it needs Qt 5.7.
I request that it be dropped from Qt 5.6 packages.
See:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/151163
https://codereview.qt-project.org/151168
Unfixed errors:
qmodbuspdu.h:163:9: war
20 matches
Mail list logo
