[GitHub] logging-log4cxx issue #3: LOGCXX-494: windows cmake build for log4cxx agains...
Github user tschoening commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/3 > Any update on this? It's almost 3 months old now and no updates from the log4cxx team. Because I responded on the mailing list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-dev/201801.mbox/<1913119533.2018072120%40am-soft.de> At least I don't have any plans to deal with such a major change in the build currently, I simply don't have the time to do so. > Not recommending a change in the overall build system. It's either about the addition of CMAKE to what is already there or the replacement of something which is already there, both are major changes from my understanding. And we already have Autotools, Maven, Shell Scripts, ANT and none of those is properly integrated with each other to support everything which is needed, like development iteration, version number updates, release date updates, site generation etc. > The complete lack of windows build support at all in the project trunk is what worries me the most. Build support in trunk was/is available using ANT and cpptasks and at least for some recent versions of Visual Studio this worked: https://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/latest_stable/building/index.html > The instructions on the web site tell people to go to a directory that does not exist and use a project file that is not there. Because those instructions addressed a release. > Version 0.10.0 eliminated all visual studio project files from the project[...] I'm somewhat sure they have never been in trunk, but only in the release package and have been generated during the release process. If you look at the following packages, some generated projects are still available: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/logging/log4cxx/ ---
[GitHub] logging-log4cxx issue #4: mbsrtowcs() returns the number of wide char,but no...
Github user tschoening commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/4 I fixed this using "requested" like mentioned in LOGCXX-399 and the linked PR #4 on GitHub. Additionally I added a test "decodingtest" using "encodingtest" as template, but the problem didn't occur using my C++Builder because I lack the used API, so am not sure if that works at all. It didn't fail before and doesn't now, so in the worst case is simply not doing anything useful. ;-) ---
[GitHub] logging-log4cxx issue #4: mbsrtowcs() returns the number of wide char,but no...
Github user tschoening commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/4 It's a string by definition so I guess we can ignore problems with terminating `0` within the string before `requested` has been reached. Additionally, `x * converted` should be wrong as well because how many bytes one multibyte character spans depends on the current locale, right? So sounds safe to assume in case of success that simply all requested characters/bytes have been processed. This is reported to work in the linked issues as well: > Then I modified the "in.position(in.position() + converted);" to "in.position(in.position() + requested);" https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGCXX-399?focusedCommentId=13969295=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-13969295 ---
[GitHub] logging-log4cxx issue #4: mbsrtowcs() returns the number of wide char,but no...
Github user tschoening commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/4 This has been reported before with different possible solutions. Is "requested" really correct compared to e.g. `sizeof(...) * converted` or such? Less than `requested` chars could have been processed in theory even without any error. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGCXX-369 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGCXX-399 ---
[GitHub] logging-log4cxx issue #2: Build with autotools+maven
Github user tschoening commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/2 There have been multiple discussions regarding CMake in the past, please search for them yourself on the mailing lists or in JIRA: https://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.logging.dev+cmake https://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.apache.logging.log4cxx-dev+cmake https://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/latest_stable/mail-lists.html https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGCXX-486?jql=project%20%3D%20LOGCXX%20AND%20text%20~%20cmake ---
[GitHub] logging-log4cxx issue #3: windows cmake build for log4cxx against apr-2
Github user tschoening commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/3 Just some notes: While it has been discussed in the past to move to CMAKE already, keep in mind that the current build bases on Autotools and/or Maven and/or Ant deals with things like projetc files generation, website generation, development iteration incl. version numbers etc. as well. So it's not only about adding CMAKE support, but one needs to ultimately decide which parts of the current build tools are kept and all that. ---
