[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-frameworks-devel
Subject:    Re: To C++11 or not?
From:       Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano () tiscali ! it>
Date:       2016-12-30 11:24:38
Message-ID: 8A64F33E-2B23-452B-94C8-9CA270CB97C5 () tiscali ! it
[Download RAW message or body]

Il 30 dicembre 2016 10:30:22 CET, Kevin Funk <kfunk@kde.org> ha scritto:

> Following-up on this thread, since I saw some more discussion about
> C++11 
> usage in this RR: 
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129724/
> 
> Let's put this into some concrete actions, finally. I think we all
> agree 
> nullptr & override are probably the most apparent issues (since
> compilers 
> started to warn about both), and *having* 'override' is actually super
> useful 
> for preventing programmer faults.
> 
> Let's just speak about allowing nullptr & override, allowing the full
> set of C
> ++11 is *not* feasible. Reason: Lot's of C++11 feature are only
> available only 
> in MSVC2015, so we'd just be able to support the latest VS. See [2].
> 
> Looking at [1] I still see we list GCC 4.5 as minimum requirement.
> That's 
> pretty ancient. 4.5.1 got released Jul 2010 [3]
> 
> If we raise that to GCC 4.6 (4.6.0 being released Mar 2011), we can use
> 
> 'nullptr' unconditionally. ktexteditor already did that in public
> headers for 
> quite some time -- no-one complained.
> 
> If we raise that to GCC 4.7 (4.7.0 being released Mar 2012), we can use
> 
> 'override' unconditionally *.
> 
> We already use MSVC2012 as min VS dep, this version has full nullptr & 
> override support. I don't see anyone using MSVC2010 for compiling KF5
> to be 
> honest...
> 
> Proposal for [1]:
> - Raise min GCC version to 4.7
> - Allow to use override unconditionally
> - Allow to use nullptr unconditonally
> 
> ACK?
> 
> 
> PS: I can do the work, I can script the refactoring with clang-tidy.
> 
> Let's move forward please.

Hi, this is a really good analysis (also for future reference). In order to complete \
it, given that the original idea was "follow Qt's requirement", and that we increased \
in time the required version of Qt, what is the current status regarding compilers \
and Qt?

Ciao

-- 
Luigi


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]