One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11 support" or
for specific parts of that. For 2.8.12 I plan to include the check module I
wrote for that a while back, and that I have reworked in the last weeks. You
can find the current state in the "rework" branch of this reposit
On Sunday 28 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11 support"
> or for specific parts of that. For 2.8.12 I plan to include the check
> module I wrote for that a while back, and that I have reworked in the last
> weeks. You can find the
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Sunday 28 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11 support"
> > or for specific parts of that. For 2.8.12 I plan to include the check
> > module I wrote for that a while back, and that I have reworked in t
On Monday 29 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11
> > > support" or for specific parts of that. For 2.8.12 I plan to include
> > > the check module I w
On Monday 29 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Sunday 28 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11
> > > support" or for specific parts of that. For 2.8.12 I plan to include
> > > the check module I w
On Thu Jul 18 21:17:25 2013 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Monday 29 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > On Sunday 28 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > > One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11
> > > > support" or for specific parts
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Monday 29 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > On Sunday 28 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > > One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11
> > > > support" or for specific parts of that. For 2.8.12 I plan t
On Friday 19 July 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Monday 29 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 28 April 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > > > One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11
> > > > > s
Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Ok, I've pushed an updated version to the rework branch. A test for the
> component check is missing, but all of your other suggestions should have
> been addressed.
>
> Has anyone anything else, otherwise I will o and put this into CMake next
> once I have the test.
>
D
Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Ok, I've pushed an updated version to the rework branch. A test for the
> > component check is missing, but all of your other suggestions should have
> > been addressed.
> >
> > Has anyone anything else, otherwise I will o and put this into CMake ne
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Friday 19 July 2013, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Ok, I've pushed an updated version to the rework branch. A test for the
> > component check is missing, but all of your other suggestions should have
> > been addressed.
>
> The variable is case-sensitive, so it is CXXF
Am Sonntag, 28. April 2013, 13:57:26 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
> One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11 support"
> or for specific parts of that. For 2.8.12 I plan to include the check
> module I wrote for that a while back, and that I have reworked in the last
> weeks. You
Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 28. April 2013, 13:57:26 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
>> One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11
>> support" or for specific parts of that. For 2.8.12 I plan to include the
>> check module I wrote for that a while back, and that I have rewor
On 08/02/2013 05:20 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Brad, please don't merge that next week
Okay. We're preparing 2.8.12 rc1 this week so I think we'll
hold off CXXFeatures until after 2.8.12 anyway.
-Brad
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitwar
Brad King wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 05:20 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Brad, please don't merge that next week
>
> Okay. We're preparing 2.8.12 rc1 this week so I think we'll
> hold off CXXFeatures until after 2.8.12 anyway.
I think 14303 should be resolved first as it would break parallel memtest
Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 28. April 2013, 13:57:26 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
> >> One question I see increasingly often is "how do I test for C++11
> >> support" or for specific parts of that. For 2.8.12 I plan to include the
> >> check module I wrote for that a whi
Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>> Given that you're gathering the versions of each feature availability
>> anyway, and given that boost.config and qcompilerdetection.h have the
>> same information, there is no need for all users of the module to run all
>> these try_compiles for all projects. Think of the
Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>> >> Given that you're gathering the versions of each feature availability
>> >> anyway, and given that boost.config and qcompilerdetection.h have the
>> >> same information, there is no need for all users of the module to run
Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> >> Given that you're gathering the versions of each feature availability
> >> anyway, and given that boost.config and qcompilerdetection.h have the
> >> same information, there is no need for all users of the module to run all
> >> these try_compiles f
Brad King wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 05:20 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Brad, please don't merge that next week
>
> Okay. We're preparing 2.8.12 rc1 this week so I think we'll
> hold off CXXFeatures until after 2.8.12 anyway.
I have pushed a fix for 14303 to next. Please have a look. Without this
On 08/01/2013 04:47 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> I'm not sure I would have made this a find-module, instead of a simple
>> module which can be included and then provides a function, but I think this
>> doesn't matter much.
>
> Because I get things like components for fre
Brad King wrote:
On 08/01/2013 04:47 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
Alexander Neundorf wrote:
I'm not sure I would have made this a find-module, instead of a
simple
module which can be included and then provides a function, but I
think this
doesn't matter much.
Because I get things like componen
Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>> 5)
>>
>> This is not nice API:
>>
>>#if defined (CXXFEATURES_NULLPTR_FOUND)
>>void *nix = nullptr;
>>#else /* CXXFEATURES_NULLPTR_FOUND */
>>void *nix = 0;
>>#endif /* CXXFEATURES_NULLPTR_FOUND */
>>
>>
>> Much better would be:
>>
>>void *nix = CXXFEATURES_NULLPTR;
>>
>> w
Stephen Kelly wrote:
> I still think you should revisit my review mail on point 2 too.
Something that becomes possible when thinking about the above and target
properties is interface requirements.
If my library uses 'final' unguarded by macros in my headers, then I want to
communicate through
On 08/02/2013 05:20 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Brad, please don't merge that
Do all of the remaining test failures need the cxx-flags topic to fix?
http://open.cdash.org/testSummary.php?project=1&name=Module.FindCXXFeatures&date=2013-08-13
I'd like to get these resolved or revert the topic be
Brad King wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 05:20 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Brad, please don't merge that
>
> Do all of the remaining test failures need the cxx-flags topic to fix?
No, since both are in next already everything that still shows up as a bug is
a bug.
> http://open.cdash.org/testSummary
On 08/13/2013 01:54 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Brad King wrote:
>> On Win64-vs10-Tv90 it is building with VS 10 but the compiler is VS 9.
> I'll switch that over to use CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_VERSION as suggested
> below, the error will probably go away then.
That worked.
>> For Win32-mingw-gcc-4.5
Am Mittwoch, 14. August 2013, 14:02:35 schrieb Brad King:
> On 08/13/2013 01:54 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Brad King wrote:
> >> On Win64-vs10-Tv90 it is building with VS 10 but the compiler is VS 9.
> >
> > I'll switch that over to use CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_VERSION as suggested
> > below, the err
Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> I still think you should revisit my review mail on point 2 too.
>
> Something that becomes possible when thinking about the above and target
> properties is interface requirements.
I've implemented a prototype which has better API than your module.
On 08/14/2013 02:19 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
>> Perhaps you can also teach the test to print out the
>> CMakeFiles/CMakeOutput.log and CMakeFiles/CMakeError.log
>> content at the end when it got unexpected results.
>
> Will look into it.
Thanks for working on this topic and getting the dashboard
Am Dienstag, 13. August 2013, 00:13:19 schrieb Stephen Kelly:
> Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> >> 5)
> >>
> >> This is not nice API:
> >>#if defined (CXXFEATURES_NULLPTR_FOUND)
> >>void *nix = nullptr;
> >>#else /* CXXFEATURES_NULLPTR_FOUND */
> >>void *nix = 0;
> >>#endif /* CXXFEATURES_NULLPTR_FOUND */
On 09/20/2013 03:42 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Having the interface in a full-featured C++11 way is step 2 or 3 on the way.
> I would like to solve the first step first.
The problem is that the solution to the later steps cannot be built
directly on top of your proposal for the first step. Steve
Am Donnerstag, 15. August 2013, 14:37:42 schrieb Stephen Kelly:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >> I still think you should revisit my review mail on point 2 too.
> >
> > Something that becomes possible when thinking about the above and target
> > properties is interface requirem
On 09/20/2013 04:32 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> It solves an entirely different problem. My topic makes CMake detect which
> C++
> features the compiler supports. Your topic is about how to get this to the
> targets and propagate it to the targets that use them.
See the thread that split off fr
34 matches
Mail list logo
