On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:07:46PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 01:19:54PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >
> > It seems I committed too soon. Sorry for not waiting. Both the macro
> > approach and Enrico's proposal are cleaner than my approach. I was
> > planning to pursue the macro approach in a follow-up commit.
>
> Apparently, the macro approach was abandoned by the Qt folks.
>
> > Regarding
> > C++11, don't we already use range-based for loops? Or is the question
> > about if we require *all* of C++11?
>
> The latter. As shown by Pavel in the other post gcc 4.7 is lacking
> something. As we use xcb_selection_notify_event_t only in one place,
> I think defining a macro is overkill. In order to avoid many calls
> to calloc() (I don't know how memory fragmentation is dealt with by
> modern compilers), we could anyway use that idea as follows:
>
> union {
> xcb_selection_notify_event_t event;
> char padding[32];
> } padded_event;
> auto & nev = padded_event.event;Enrico, I propose that you commit. Thanks for the fix. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
