Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Hi Greg, On Fri, 13. Jan 2017 at 19:15:27 -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > We're not using the C++ API - so that shouldn't matter. > I took the comment to mean that since QGIS would require c++11, if you > wanted to run QGIS, you'd ned to cope with a new-enough compiler, in > which case GDAL also

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Jürgen E. Fischer writes: > On Fri, 13. Jan 2017 at 06:42:26 +1000, Nyall Dawson wrote: >> FYI - the upcoming QGIS 3.0 release has a hard c++11 requirement. Not >> sure how much that affects things, but certainly projects which >> utilise GDAL are already switching to c++11. > >

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Hi, We are actively using GDAL on WIndows, Linux and Android to deal with GIS data reading gaps. Currently we are constrained to using 'gcc 4.7' on Linux, which gives us a lot of C++11 that we currently want to use. On Windows we have switched to Visual Studio 2015. On Android we will probably

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Hi, On Fri, 13. Jan 2017 at 06:42:26 +1000, Nyall Dawson wrote: > FYI - the upcoming QGIS 3.0 release has a hard c++11 requirement. Not > sure how much that affects things, but certainly projects which > utilise GDAL are already switching to c++11. We're not using the C++ API - so that shouldn't

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

That's a possibility, but as longs as we require most of the code base to work with C++03, merging is going to be miserable. I'm suggesting we flip the requirement but make no immediate changes. GDAL builds cleanly with C++11 and C++14 right now, so it's just a matter of flipping the requirement

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

There's a lot of code to work on. Would it make sense just to make a C++11 branch and get to work, merging into master whenever it seems the right time? On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Nyall Dawson wrote: > On 13 January 2017 at 02:57, Greg Troxel

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

On 13 January 2017 at 02:57, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Kurt Schwehr writes: > > If no other packages start to depend on unreleased GDAL, and the first > GDAL release requiring C++11 is a ways off, and by then enough other > things require it that a system not

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Thanks Gred and Andrew! Those are exactly the kind of comments that help. Greg, I have lots of experience packaging GDAL in fink for the mac, but less elsewhere. I found this like which implies that pkgsrc is at GDAL 1.11.3. Are there better links? - http://pkgsrc.se/geography/gdal-lib -

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Kurt Schwehr writes: > Greg, > > Can you explain the use case as to what keeps you on an older NetBSD but > unable to use a branch of a recent GDAL? e.g. I'm am suggesting that we > keep GDAL 2.1 and older to stay with the current requirement of supporting > C++03. That is

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Kurt Schwehr wrote: Andrew, Have you tried compiling GDAL 1.11 as C++11? Yes, and even with C++14 (g++ v5.3.1-6), but mixing GCC versions on linux is more forgiving than mixing different compilers on most other platforms. I used GDAL 1.11 built as C++11 for quite a

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Andres, Have you tried compiling GDAL 1.11 as C++11? I used GDAL 1.11 built as C++11 for quite a while before switching to GDAL 2.x. We aren't talking about changing the internal API for drivers. Or am I missing something? On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Andrew C Aitchison

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016, Kurt Schwehr wrote: I would like to continue the C++11 discussion over the next couple weeks while many people are on slower development cycles with a proposal: * Starting 2017-Mar-01, we switch GDAL trunk to require C++11 support from the compiler. * All prior branches

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

MS4W builds are moving to VS2015, because PHP 7's requirement for that compiler, but stable releases are done now with VS2012. (I've officially moved away from the old VS2008) -jeff -- Jeff McKenna President Emeritus, OSGeo Foundation http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna On 2017-01-05

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Why is there a desire to support old compilers for new code? Those that don't want to upgrade compilers can always use existing distributions. On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Kurt Schwehr wrote: > Even responded while I was trying to write up something, so I'm going to >

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Even responded while I was trying to write up something, so I'm going to stop writing and send :) Howard, Thanks for the thoughts. I believe we are thinking along the same lines. All, After time for comments, I plan to write up an RFC for the initial strategy that is explicit about

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

> > What is the list of compilers that GDAL actively and accidentally supports? Currently, at least: GCC >= 4.4 (actually must be 4.1 since this is what ancient mingw uses) clang >= 3.something (3.0 probably) VS >= 2008 ICC 15 probably One aspect is to also consider the various analyzers used.

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 9:08 AM, Kurt Schwehr wrote: > > A ping to bring the topic of C++11 back to the front post holidays. > > Thoughts? > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Kurt Schwehr wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to continue the C++11 discussion

Re: [gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

A ping to bring the topic of C++11 back to the front post holidays. Thoughts? On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Kurt Schwehr wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to continue the C++11 discussion over the next couple weeks > while many people are on slower development cycles

[gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

Hi all, I would like to continue the C++11 discussion over the next couple weeks while many people are on slower development cycles with a proposal: * Starting 2017-Mar-01, we switch GDAL trunk to require C++11 support from the compiler. * All prior branches would stick with their existing