On 01/06/2011 09:37 AM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Monty Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Even for the client/connector? >>> I'm curious, got a link where Brian explains why it's not efficient enough? >> >> No - he just poked at it offline. Maybe we can get him to expand on that. > > That'd be nice. > >> However, libdrizzle itself isn't in C++ at the moment - it's in plain C. >> We've chatted about making the implementation in C++ with an extern "C" >> API for pure-C clients to use, but have not done that yet - so as of now >> it's just C99. > > That should be easy. > >>>>> Are c++0x features (available in g++ 4.4) allowed? >>>> >>>> No - we still have platforms on which we must use gcc 4.2. (/me cries) >>> >>> Argh. RH? >> >> OSX, actually. ALTHOUGH - then the next version of OSX comes out, I'm >> hoping it has a new version of clang, which is really close to being >> able to compile both boost and drizzle. If we can get drizzle compiling >> under clang on OSX, we can drop OSX gcc support, and then we can move >> forward with some of the nicer C++0x features (like constructor defaults >> and move semantics) > > I've no experience with OSX myself, is installing a recent compiler that hard?
Yes. OSX has no native package management system. Also, the main reason we support OSX is because many devs use it for their personal laptops (certainly not because we expect deployments on OSX) So it has been deemed that requiring someone to install a new compiler would be too great a dependency. Monty _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
