On 20 Jun, Yury Tarasievich wrote: > Hello Peter, > > You are right on both issues, of course. > > To be fair, on your (1), I didn't touch that > variable check, I just brute-forced the C++11 > mode of compilation. > > Which leads to your (2), but thing is, modern > boost sort of requires C++11. Might be other > external modules do, too. > Might that switch to C++11 be overdue? > > What I consider the nicest result (beyond the > 'fact of the pudding') is seeing that the C++11 > build is achievable with very minimal changes to > the source, which wouldn't (shouldn't?) reflect > on builds with older versions of GCC.
I think that we still need to do release builds of 4.1.x on CentOS 5. Is it's version of gcc new enough? Same question about the ancient toolchain we use for Windows builds. Since we don't use any of the boost libraries, only the include files, there's not real penalty in using the bundled boost other than the time it takes to download and unpack. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
