Agreed on the 11 v 14 issues. On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> wrote:
> Le lundi 09 mai 2016 19:28:48, vous avez écrit : > > Here is my current take on language standards > > > > - I am working on a C++11/14 C99/11 proposal. I despirately want to be > > able to use C++11 to make GDAL more robust > > C++11 is probably OK, but C++14 support is really "new". For Linux > distros, we > should try to make GDAL compilable on the current LTS and probably in the > case > of Ubuntu last-1 LTS with their default compiler. > > For example RHEL 7 ships with gcc 4.8.X, Ubuntu 14.04 too. > I've checked that gcc 4.8 refuses -std=c++14. It accepts -std=c++1y > though, so > some features of C++14 might be available. > > At least for the sake of our CI environements : Travis has no immediate > plans > for now to ship with with Ubuntu 16.04 ( > https://github.com/travis-ci/travis- > ci/issues/5821 ) > > > - As it stands I will vote >>>against<<< my proposal any time soon - > until > > with have a bunch of proposals for changes to GDAL that require new > > language versions or someone rewrites my proposal to be much more > > compelling - Which proposal exactly ? AFAICS in this thread, it was more about polling > opinions. > I have not sent out the doc yet. > > > We have lots of work that we can do to make GDAL maintenance > > / debugging easier that does not require newer language versions > > - We have successfully ( at least in my opinion ) stuck a toe in the > C++11 > > world with CPL_FINAL, CPL_DISALLOW_COPY_ASSIGN, NULL_AS_NULLPTR, and > > my std::lock_guard<std::mutex> experiments. We can probably do a bit > more > > if we are careful. > > - I think having an experimental autotest2 C++11/14 only testing tree > might > > be the way to start. Those who want to can try it out or look through > what > > is possible and it won't impact the main tree or the existing C++ tests. > > > > > > I would be happy to start contributing to > > https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/browser/trunk/autotest2, especially if we > call > > it experimental and I can get help with adding a build system. I have > > > > >5000 lines of C++ in 32 test files that mostly cover the port directory > > > > right now. I got hung up on trying to create a working initial version > in > > a separate github tree. Adding it to the existing svn tree would get me > > around that issue (it's an internal work thing). Here is > > cpl_string_test.cc... it's super boring. > > > > https://gist.github.com/schwehr/02128959ee78d56b553defa0a527bdf2 > > > > It's written using the Google C++ style guide and is based on gunit, > gmock > > and glog. > > > > - https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html > > - https://github.com/google/googletest > > - https://github.com/google/glog > > Are those available as ready to be installable packages ? (thinking about > integration with CI) > > The people who maintain gunit/gmock prefer that projects package the gunit code inside their repos. git clone g...@github.com:google/googletest.git cd googletest find . -type f | wc -l 340 du -hs 8.9M . e.g. for libais, I just made third_party and put them in side that... https://github.com/schwehr/libais/tree/master/third_party > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Mateusz Loskot <mate...@loskot.net> > wrote: > > > On 7 May 2016 at 19:10, Kurt Schwehr <schw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> If we move to a later C++ standard, or even use features of C++98 we > > > >> currently > > > >> don't use, I'd advocate for using things that are obviously making > the > > > >> code > > > >> better / more readable. Honestly who finds that > > > >> "std::unique_ptr<int *, std::function<void(char *)>> > > > >> Vals(CPLCalloc(256, 0), > > > >> CPLFree);" is obviously more readable, efficient and less error > prone > > > > > > than > > > > > > >> "std::vector Vals(256,0)" ? > > > > > > > > This is cart before the horse but... as fast as I can so expect > typos. > > > > > > Now > > > > > > > just think of a ~1K long function or method with tons of instances > and > > > > > > lots > > > > > > > of places to bailout successfully or as failures. We have > 9K > > > > free/CPLFree/CPLdelete/CPLDestroys that could be < ~100. > > > > [...] > > > > > > ...the very long story short, your desire is to introduce the RAII > idiom > > > across GDAL codebase. Awesome! > > > I'm sure 99% of GDAL committers will welcome this idea. > > > Then, **next** question is how we want to implement it: > > > using C++11+ features, home-brewed smart pointer class(es), etc. > > > > > > Upgrading to C++11+ just for the sake of upgrade, makes little sense to > > > me. Especially if folks are not certain about it, don't use those > > > features daily, > > > don't feel comfortable...it may cause more harm. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > -- > > > Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net > > -- >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
