Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 00:56:31
C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com napisał(a):
On 12/19/13 12:47 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 19 December 2013 06:33, Jan Kundrát j...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm worried by the cost of such a policy, though, because we would suddenly
have to patch some unknown
On 12/19/13 03:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 00:56:31
C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com napisał(a):
On 12/19/13 12:47 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 19 December 2013 06:33, Jan Kundrát j...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm worried by the cost of such a policy, though, because we
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 15:28:46
C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com napisał(a):
On 12/19/13 03:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 00:56:31
C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com napisał(a):
On 12/19/13 12:47 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 19 December 2013 06:33, Jan
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 02:41:55 CEST, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd like to make an analogy to the version bump of gcc[1]. We (gentoo)
decide to support c++11 officially or not. If so, open a tracker bug to
push it globally. If not, patch lldb to support non-c++11, or leave it
up to the
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 09:35:14 CEST, Michał Górny wrote:
And how is this an issue to the major distributions? Binary distros can
do a simple switch with standard all-package upgrade and forget about
it. Like they usually do. Only people who built from sources have to
think about it.
On 12/19/13 03:35 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 15:28:46
C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com napisał(a):
On 12/19/13 03:20 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 00:56:31
C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com napisał(a):
On 12/19/13 12:47 AM, Kent Fredric
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 09:58:25
Sven Eden sven.e...@gmx.de napisał(a):
Am Mittwoch, 18. Dezember 2013, 08:54:47 schrieb Michał Górny:
This raises the following question: how do we want to do it? I see two
possibilities:
a) adding USE=c++11 and USE-deps to all the packages in question,
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 09:43:40
Jan Kundrát j...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 02:41:55 CEST, hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'd like to make an analogy to the version bump of gcc[1]. We (gentoo)
decide to support c++11 officially or not. If so, open a tracker bug to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 15:34:13 -0800
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
And at the same time, clean up the descriptions of the other flags.
The existing descriptions were clearly copy-and-pasted and contained
things like faster floating point
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 09:44:38 CEST, C. Bergström wrote:
libboost.so (or any really popular lib.. Qt..) built with
-std=c++11 breaks abi
As I said, the problem is more complicated. Qt5 built with the C++11
support does not break its ABI compared to usign the C++98 mode.
Boost is in
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org writes:
And that brings another issue in Gentoo -- gcc-config. AFAIR this tool
is completely insane and switches libstdc++ along with gcc version.
As a result, after switching to a gcc version with different C++ ABI,
installed software gets broken. And you can't
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 22:47:50
hero...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org writes:
And that brings another issue in Gentoo -- gcc-config. AFAIR this tool
is completely insane and switches libstdc++ along with gcc version.
As a result, after switching to a gcc version
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/12/13 04:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 09:58:25 Sven Eden sven.e...@gmx.de
napisał(a):
So I'd go the reverse way. Make CXXFLAGS=-std=c++11 the
default, and only override this for packages that do fishy stuff
and
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org writes:
Think of paludis as a good example. People who'd like to use Paludis
will end up with broken package manager from time to time. How are they
supposed to rebuild it without a working package manager?
Oh, I'm scared. I'll step away and watch out for such
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 10:18:55 CEST, Michał Górny wrote:
Would it be possible to have a consistent ABI for both C++03 and C++11?
The simpler changes like adding new fields can be backported quite
easily (even if it would mean having dummy fields in C++03), I have no
idea about the more
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 16:00:13 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
A change in profiles? 14.0/* adds that to the default CXXFLAGS in
base, new stage3's etc are all rolled with this. We recommend
migration to 14.0 profile and have a check somewhere about
-std=c++11 missing from CXXFLAGS in
On 12/19/2013 10:00 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 19/12/13 04:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2013-12-19, o godz. 09:58:25 Sven Eden sven.e...@gmx.de
napisał(a):
So I'd go the reverse way. Make CXXFLAGS=-std=c++11 the
default, and only
On 12/19/2013 10:23 AM, Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 16:00:13 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
A change in profiles? 14.0/* adds that to the default CXXFLAGS in
base, new stage3's etc are all rolled with this. We recommend
migration to 14.0 profile and have a check somewhere
On 12/19/13 16:17, Jan Kundrát wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 10:18:55 CEST, Michał Górny wrote:
Would it be possible to have a consistent ABI for both C++03 and C++11?
The simpler changes like adding new fields can be backported quite
easily (even if it would mean having dummy fields in
On Thursday, 19 December 2013 17:29:19 CEST, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
just a question, what would do -fabi-version=6 added to CXXFLAGS even
w/o C++11?
I believe that -fabi-version is for low level bits at the level of e.g.
identifier mangling. It cannot affect whether a std::string is
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:47:50 +0900
hero...@gentoo.org wrote:
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org writes:
And that brings another issue in Gentoo -- gcc-config. AFAIR this
tool is completely insane and switches libstdc++ along with gcc
version. As a result, after switching to a gcc version with
21 matches
Mail list logo
