[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sc-dev] c++11 in sc
- To: sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [sc-dev] c++11 in sc
- From: Dan Stowell <danstowell+sc3@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 12:33:07 +0000
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=0B24uRrdxd0DUSXZEb/7Pld4/yj6F9oWZqOEzxz+QB0=; b=qEzT9E3QKHX/zlWnchlWau31uRdmuxvMx2EG3TmeG/rM+M4DFnvhWDBaBKbQy7GSZM bI3xCHSjQiB70AR5OVET67UOSmmw9C1aOx+9zNCQon3asUuYb9GCfmiq+AtAUR0Pw6ix zoi9kFKoDmwewoZ/gMwLhoLUfHFaoU4STWtBEcYyzFz2lqGmdWcNKb7Vh3ql2LGzP09Z nXllLFldCKZ9E9x5BO1ltxUEYjZneHMDfddy39B5mLNy2DxFup+m3tDUxgDZXBqiXyjd EzgeC8P8rb59CiKXPItZusX/ufC9GmY1yaIXZ73xG5yNPJiXAEbz85zeUtnc9JzuDOY9 EdSA==
- In-reply-to: <50E558B2.email@example.com>
- List-id: SuperCollider developers mailing list <sc-devel.create.ucsb.edu>
- References: <50E558B2.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I know nothing of these new features (though they sound like fun).
From my ubuntu/debian packaging perspective I'm happy with the idea:
Ubuntu has had gcc 4.6 for more than a year and it's in the current
LTS release (10.04 doesn't have it, but that's about to run out of its
LTS period); similarly for Debian wheezy and sid (squeeze doesn't have
it but we don't target that). Plus getting rid of some parts of boost
might simplify the linux packaging.
"Range-based for loops" sounds like a very minor issue: it doesn't
seem to me to be a strong justification for cutting off gcc-4.5. It
might be prudent to stay more widely compatible if possible.
I guess the crucial question is whether it would make life hard for
any mac folks.
(Also it should be checked that it doesn't cause pain on windows, even
if the compiler is said to handle it.)
2013/1/3 Tim Blechmann <tim@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> hi all,
> i have been using c++11-structures for quite some time and got a huge
> fan of it, as it addresses a lot of cross-platform issues, not to
> mention lambda functions, futures, type inference and the like. it
> actually feels like a new language. i'd therefore suggest to introduce
> some c++11 features in to the sc codebase.
> * use a subset of c++11, which is available in gcc-4.6 and clang++. this
> breaks compatibility with old compilers. we could allow gcc-4.5, but
> this does not implement range-based for loops. clang++ seems to
> implement most features, although osx>=10.7 only (10.6 might be
> supported by bundling libc++). mingw64 (based on gcc-4.7) and msvc are
> said to provide rather good c++11 support.
> * we can get rid of some parts of boost
> * we can unify some platform-specific code (e.g. pthreads)
> sc-dev mailing list
> info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
> archive: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-dev/
> search: https://listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-dev/search/
sc-dev mailing list
info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml