Volker Hilsheimer (9 May 2023 17:01) wrote:
> The primary purpose of the header review is to catch *technical*
> mistakes - BC or SC breakages - rather than to discuss API design,
> naming, or style.
Some technical errors are future-readiness: as long as we have BC and SC
commitments, we have to
On 10.05.23 01:21, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 17:39:01 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Opinions?
>
> BTW, here's the opinion of the GCC devs:
>
> Don't ever use the -std= option to raise the language from the default. That
> implies opting in to functionality that they're not
On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2023 08:01:11 CEST Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> On 10.05.23 01:21, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 17:39:01 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> Opinions?
> >
> > BTW, here's the opinion of the GCC devs:
> >
> > Don't ever use the -std= option to raise the
> On 10 May 2023, at 07:39, Marc Mutz via Development
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> That said. I find discussing style-guides in general a waste of time, and
>> will
>> agree to anything that make us stop wasting time on this.
>
> I tend to agree, but the choice is either to define it centrally, or you
Joe (cfd new, 9 May 2023 17:59) wrote:
> I made a pipeline to receive rtsp streaming with vah264dec
> compliance=flexible.
Given that the token "vah264dec" does not appear in any Qt source code I
have checked out, I suspect you need to give more context to what you're
asking about and at least
sorry eddy. Wrong forum.
Joe
On Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 03:59:53 a.m. EDT, Edward Welbourne
wrote:
Joe (cfd new, 9 May 2023 17:59) wrote:
> I made a pipeline to receive rtsp streaming with vah264dec
> compliance=flexible.
Given that the token "vah264dec" does not appear in any
On Tuesday, 9 May 2023 23:01:11 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> "The GCC dev_s_", or "one GCC dev"? And who? Jonathan? [citation needed]
Jonathan and Thomas Rogers, but it was the consensus opinion when I brought up
some decisions in that are ABI and should have been given some more
