Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

Hi, Stephan Bergmann píše v Pá 28. 11. 2014 v 09:22 +0100: > Maintainers of active Windows tinderboxes (on cc, as of > ), > > please make sure until, say, mid of next week (Dec 3) that they are > using M

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 12/04/2014 09:55 PM, Terrence Enger wrote: >> >> It's not a big deal for me (because I am just looking for trouble, >> not trying to get work done), but maybe somebody cares: my attempt to >> run LibreOffice installed from (I am retypin

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

On 12/04/2014 09:55 PM, Terrence Enger wrote: It's not a big deal for me (because I am just looking for trouble, not trying to get work done), but maybe somebody cares: my attempt to run LibreOffice installed from (I am retyping this with newlines added) http://dev-build.libreoffice.org/da

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

On Wed, 2014-12-03 at 15:35 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 11/28/2014 09:22 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > > Maintainers of active Windows tinderboxes (on cc, as of > > ), > > please make sure until, say,

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

Stephan Bergmann wrote: > Maintainers of active Windows tinderboxes (on cc, as of > ), > please make sure until, say, mid of next week (Dec 3) that they are > using MSVC 2013 for master builds. > To make it ex

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

On 11/28/2014 09:22 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: Maintainers of active Windows tinderboxes (on cc, as of ), please make sure until, say, mid of next week (Dec 3) that they are using MSVC 2013 for master build

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

On 12/03/2014 07:39 AM, julien2412 wrote: Will we be able to consider that erase method of every container (not just some of them) will return an iterator so we won't need a temporary iterator when using erase in a loop block? (eg: http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/map/map/erase/) The only ans

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

Hi, Will we be able to consider that erase method of every container (not just some of them) will return an iterator so we won't need a temporary iterator when using erase in a loop block? (eg: http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/map/map/erase/) Julien -- View this message in context: http://n

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

On 11/25/2014 09:13 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: So dropping MSVC 2012 for 2013 would give us six new features: * Variadic templates * Initializer lists * Default template argumetns for function templates * Explicit conversion operators * Raw string literals * Defaulted and deleted functions And

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

On 25.11.2014 09:13, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > Until now, our minimum C++ compiler requirements on master are: > >* Clang 3.1 >* GCC 4.6 (specifically for Munich; preferred 4.7) >* MSVC 2012 > > Branch-off of LO 4.4 from master seems like a good time to re-visit. > And natural candid

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

Am 25.11.2014 um 09:13 schrieb Stephan Bergmann: > Until now, our minimum C++ compiler requirements on master are: > > * Clang 3.1 > * GCC 4.6 (specifically for Munich; preferred 4.7) > * MSVC 2012 > > Branch-off of LO 4.4 from master seems like a good time to re-visit. And > natural candi

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

On 11/25/2014 04:34 PM, Terrence Enger wrote: The range-based `for` offers clearer code, IMHO. When, I wonder, is it appropriate to use it? (*) New code? (*) When I am changing a for-statement anyway? (*) Throughout a function when I am changing a for-statement anyway? (*) Not at all until we ar

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 09:13 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: interesting stuff about features of C++ supported by various compilers. The range-based `for` offers clearer code, IMHO. When, I wonder, is it appropriate to use it? (*) New code? (*) When I am changing a for-statement anyway? (*) Through

Re: C++11 on master (towards LO 4.5)

> Thoughts? > I am all for it! I already tried using initializer lists (which IMHO seem quite useful and not "obscure" at all;) but was then saddened to notice that MSVS2012 did not support them. --tml ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.free

Re: C++11

On Monday 15 of September 2014, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > ...oh, and one important thing I forgot to mention: For the URE > interface, it is probably best to stay with C++03 for now (to keep > requirements laxer for 3rd party extension authors, and e.g. not force > them to use

Re: C++11

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:40:09PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote: > But we are only people, so I added checking of this to the odk checkapi test. Thanks so much for that, I was worrying about that. Best, Bjoern ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists

Re: C++11

On 09/15/2014 12:20 PM, Jan-Marek Glogowski wrote: Well - we'll release our 12.04 based rollout this year (I know we're late ;-) and it'll be at least supported for the next 2-3 years. This change means we won't be able to do any LO updates after 4.3, not even thinking of building a LO version fo

Re: C++11

...oh, and one important thing I forgot to mention: For the URE interface, it is probably best to stay with C++03 for now (to keep requirements laxer for 3rd party extension authors, and e.g. not force them to use for Linux extensions). In other word

Re: C++11

Hi everybody, Am 15.09.2014 09:45, schrieb Stephan Bergmann: > As discussed previously (ESC meeting minutes > > and > ), > we intended to start using at

mdds::multi_type_vector (was: Re: C++11 in LibreOffice)

On 07/23/2012 05:04 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote: Where's the benchmark for that? I'd like to see what difference it makes, but I cannot find anything in the blog post. Good question. I didn't put benchmark data in because I wanted to first get the background story out first, which I knew was goi

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

Hi Lubos, On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 11:04 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote: > > But no doubt more work is ahead to further optimize this structure. > > Where's the benchmark for that? I'd like to see what difference it makes, > but > I cannot find anything in the blog post. Benchmark ? as in a hu

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On Thursday 19 of July 2012, Michael Meeks wrote: > Having said that, I totally agree, our problems are 95% algorithmic, > and fiddling with compiler optimiser settings is the last refuge of the > desperate man ;-) > > The thing that concerns me about gcc vs. MSVC++ is not the speed of

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On Saturday 21 of July 2012, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On 07/19/2012 11:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:04 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote: > >> i'm saying it doesn't benefit from the "sophisticated" optimizations > >> that vendor compilers like SunStudio or Intel do that speed up

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On 07/19/2012 11:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:04 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote: i'm saying it doesn't benefit from the "sophisticated" optimizations that vendor compilers like SunStudio or Intel do that speed up your BLAS stuff with gigabytes of floating point arrays by X t

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Michael Stahl wrote: > On 20/07/12 16:31, Yi Ding wrote: >> Fair point. :-) Let me see if I can get a build working on Windows >> this weekend. I see on the wiki that building with VS 2010 is not yet >> supported: >> >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Developme

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On 20/07/12 16:31, Yi Ding wrote: > Fair point. :-) Let me see if I can get a build working on Windows > this weekend. I see on the wiki that building with VS 2010 is not yet > supported: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Windows_Build_Dependencies > > Is this information still

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

Fair point. :-) Let me see if I can get a build working on Windows this weekend. I see on the wiki that building with VS 2010 is not yet supported: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Windows_Build_Dependencies Is this information still current? On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Micha

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

Hi there, On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 11:21 -0500, Yi Ding wrote: > +1 ... > +1 ... > +1 ... Thanks for your encouragement, but this is a developers list :-) which of these do you want to work on ? There is low-hanging fruit everywhere for developers to focus on - which would you like to look i

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

+1 on considering startup performance/memory usage. It looks like with Office 13 Microsoft has done more work in getting Office to startup faster (no benchmarks, just anecdotal experience). +1 on the ability to do some kind of cross-compiling solution in parallel. +1 on gigabyte spreadsheets of

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:04 +0200, Michael Stahl wrote: > i'm saying it doesn't benefit from the "sophisticated" optimizations that > vendor compilers like SunStudio or Intel do that speed up your BLAS > stuff with gigabytes of floating point arrays by X times because office > suites don't contain

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On 19/07/12 14:59, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Michael Stahl wrote: > >> i don't believe an office suite will benefit all that much from >> sophisticated compiler optimizations; > > It's certainly your opinion. But I tend think that, any binary > generated from a comp

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On 07/19/2012 09:49 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 08:59:34AM -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Michael Stahl wrote: i don't believe an office suite will benefit all that much from sophisticated compiler optimizations; It's certainly your opi

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 08:59:34AM -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Michael Stahl wrote: > > > i don't believe an office suite will benefit all that much from > > sophisticated compiler optimizations; > > It's certainly your opinion. But I tend think that, any binar

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Michael Stahl wrote: > i don't believe an office suite will benefit all that much from > sophisticated compiler optimizations; It's certainly your opinion. But I tend think that, any binary generated from a compiler could use the benefit of compiler optimization.

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On 17/07/12 21:21, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On 07/17/2012 05:11 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote: >> So, as long as we require to build LO with MSVC, we can revisit the >> question >> of hard-depending on C++11 in, uhm, let's be optimistic and say 3 years. IOW, >> we can probably get there faster by ditching

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

2012/7/17 Kohei Yoshida : > On 07/17/2012 05:11 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote: >> >> So, as long as we require to build LO with MSVC, we can revisit the >> question >> of hard-depending on C++11 in, uhm, let's be optimistic and say 3 years. >> IOW, >> we can probably get there faster by ditching backward

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On 07/17/2012 05:11 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote: So, as long as we require to build LO with MSVC, we can revisit the question of hard-depending on C++11 in, uhm, let's be optimistic and say 3 years. IOW, we can probably get there faster by ditching backwards ABI compatibility with LO4 and switching t

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On Tuesday 17 of July 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 07/16/2012 06:53 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > > The most problematic ones are the gcc compiler used on Mac OS X (gcc > > 4.0?), and MSVC 2008 compilers. If you (or someone else equally > > interested) are willing to research those two compiler

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On 07/16/2012 06:53 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote: The most problematic ones are the gcc compiler used on Mac OS X (gcc 4.0?), and MSVC 2008 compilers. If you (or someone else equally interested) are willing to research those two compilers to see what subset of C++11 features they support (if at all),

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

Thank you again. Unfortunately gcc starts to support C++11 only in 4.3, and MSVC has very little C++11 in 2008 (2010 has much more). Uray M. János On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM, János Uray wrote: > > Thank you. > > It's not a happy answ

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:53:24PM -0400, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM, János Uray wrote: > > Thank you. > > It's not a happy answer though. > > I hoped that there are at least some little features in the intersection of > > the C++11-knowledge of the supported compilers

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM, János Uray wrote: > Thank you. > It's not a happy answer though. > I hoped that there are at least some little features in the intersection of > the C++11-knowledge of the supported compilers. The most problematic ones are the gcc compiler used on Mac OS X (gcc 4

Re: C++11 in LibreOffice

Forgot to reply all in this gmail web interface... On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM, János Uray wrote: >> I have a simple question. >> Can I use C++11 in LibreOffice development? Or at least some parts of C++11? > > The short answer is, no