On Friday, 9 February 2024 23:04:20 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I added a fallback to C++17. I make no promises that it has the same level
> of compatibility as the C++20 official concept. In fact, I know it doesn't.
> It will reject some types and accept others that it shouldn't.
>
> That's
On Friday, 9 February 2024 06:45:30 PST Volker Hilsheimer via Development
wrote:
> The 3 big C++20 features people ask us about are modules, co-routines, and
> concepts. We have no compelling answers here. You can’t build Qt into a set
> of modules; we have no APIs using co-routines; none of our
Il 09/02/24 15:45, Volker Hilsheimer via Development ha scritto:
So, as much as I’d like for some of the things I’m working on to be able
to benefit from C++ 20, I’d also say that we should rather slow down,
and only require C++20 if we have something to show for it. We can
perhaps still make
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 06:51:44PM +0100, Philippe wrote:
> >So, as much as I'd like for some of the things I'mworking on to be
> >able to benefit from C++ 20, I'd also say that we should rather slow
> >down, and only require C++20 if we have something to show for it.
>
> C++20 makes for a more
On 9/2/24 16:45, Volker Hilsheimer via Development wrote:
I haven’t heard any convincing argument for us raising the minimum to C++ 20 in
the foreseeable future. Not for building Qt, and not for using Qt.
At most we get some convenience constructs for ourselves. There’s value in that, of
>So, as much as Id like for some of the things Im working on to be
>able to benefit from C++ 20, Id also say that we should rather slow
>down, and only require C++20 if we have something to show for it.
C++20 makes for a more enjoyable coding experience; this human factor
should not be ruled
Of Volker
Hilsheimer via Development
Sent: 09 February 2024 14:46
To: Vladimir Minenko ; development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Raising the minimum to C++20
I haven’t heard any convincing argument for us raising the minimum to C++ 20 in
the foreseeable future. Not for building Qt
I haven’t heard any convincing argument for us raising the minimum to C++ 20 in
the foreseeable future. Not for building Qt, and not for using Qt.
At most we get some convenience constructs for ourselves. There’s value in
that, of course. But unless I miss something huge, then that value is
Just as a reminder, the "C++20 is mandatory for users of Qt (Phase III)”
(https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-109362) says "The tentative plan is Qt
6.12+”
and "C++20 is required for the development and buiding of Qt itself (Phase II)”
(https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-109361) - "The
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 17:39:01 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I don't have access to QNX and INTEGRITY toolchain information, so I'd like
> to request that they simply match the feature list above, with minimal
> workarounds.
What's the current state for those, for supporting Qt 6.8 or 6.9?
We
On Tuesday, 9 May 2023 23:01:11 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> "The GCC dev_s_", or "one GCC dev"? And who? Jonathan? [citation needed]
Jonathan and Thomas Rogers, but it was the consensus opinion when I brought up
some decisions in that are ABI and should have been given some more
On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2023 08:01:11 CEST Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> On 10.05.23 01:21, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 17:39:01 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> Opinions?
> >
> > BTW, here's the opinion of the GCC devs:
> >
> > Don't ever use the -std= option to raise the
On 10.05.23 01:21, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 17:39:01 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Opinions?
>
> BTW, here's the opinion of the GCC devs:
>
> Don't ever use the -std= option to raise the language from the default. That
> implies opting in to functionality that they're not
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 17:39:01 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Opinions?
BTW, here's the opinion of the GCC devs:
Don't ever use the -std= option to raise the language from the default. That
implies opting in to functionality that they're not entirely satisfied with,
and may possibly still break
For the sake of correctness...
On Sat, 6 May 2023 at 12:12, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
[snip]
> - meta-qt6 is still buggy. Note I am not talking about boot2qt but
> just using the Qt 6 layer in a normal Yocto way. Example:
> QTBUG-113372: QT_HOST_PATH not set in SDK.
This last
Hi!
On Fri, 5 May 2023 at 07:19, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
>
[snip]
> I don't see any of these as worth breaking embedded users who want new
> Qt versions but don't yet
> have the compilers that can give them these facilities.
Well, my experience with Yocto and Qt 6 has so far been:
- A pain
On Friday, 5 May 2023 09:14:35 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> One, __builtin_is_constant_evaluated() works with GCC 9, Clang 10, MSVC 2019
> and even the old EDG-based Intel compiler in C++17 mode, see
> https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/4boM5Esfx
> So we *could* just use it and damn the torpedoes.
.
Yours,
Tuukka
From: Development on behalf of Thiago
Macieira
Date: Friday, 5. May 2023 at 19.17
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Raising the minimum to C++20
On Friday, 5 May 2023 03:18:46 PDT Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > Of the
On Friday, 5 May 2023 03:18:46 PDT Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > Of the C++20 features I currently see a good reason to make mandatory:
> > * feature-test macros (no change: we're already using them)
> > * spaceship operator and header
> > * char8_t
> > * std::is_constant_evaluated()
> > *
On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 10:54, Marc Mutz via Development
wrote:
>
> On 04.05.23 00:39, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > And yet, the list of things we want from C++20 is not that big. It's nowhere
> > as complex as C++11 and I'd argue that even the 17 upgrade for Qt 6.0 was a
> > bigger jump. Unless we
On Wed, 3 May 2023 at 03:41, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> C++23 is on the way, so maybe it's time for us to raise our minimum to the one
> version before that. Let's aim for Qt 6.7, because feature-freeze for 6.6 is
> within one month, and lets us warn our users this is coming.
>
> By this, I mean
> On 04.05.23 08:52, Maurice Kalinowski via Development wrote:
> [...]
> > This is the situation we experience in multiple industries still, with an
> increasing pressure from multiple angles to get those finally supporting Qt 6.
> Hence, things are getting better for C++17 _now_.
> [...]
>
>
On Thursday, 4 May 2023 00:52:47 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> On 04.05.23 00:39, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > And yet, the list of things we want from C++20 is not that big. It's
> > nowhere as complex as C++11 and I'd argue that even the 17 upgrade for Qt
> > 6.0 was a bigger jump. Unless
On 04.05.23 00:24, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 11:15:19 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
>> That might be so, and I'm not Maurice or Vladimir, but if I was to
>> decide, I wouldn't commit my company to a roadmap that requires forward
>> binary compatibility from stdlib
On 04.05.23 08:52, Maurice Kalinowski via Development wrote:
[...]
> This is the situation we experience in multiple industries still, with an
> increasing pressure from multiple angles to get those finally supporting Qt
> 6. Hence, things are getting better for C++17 _now_.
[...]
This actually
On 04.05.23 00:39, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> And yet, the list of things we want from C++20 is not that big. It's nowhere
> as complex as C++11 and I'd argue that even the 17 upgrade for Qt 6.0 was a
> bigger jump. Unless we add concepts to the list, but I don't think we can
> until we've
>
> Can you provide more details on what the difficulties are and when relief
> should
> be expected for this?
>
> When you say "supply chain issues" for C++17, I am thinking that those
> customers are buying compilers in a DVD in a box and that is stuck in a
> container still sailing from
On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 11:14:55 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> [Sorry, yes, 6.9 is in spring '25. I messed up the counting]
As a native of the Southern Hemisphere, I ask that we use dates, not seasons
to refer to times. Everyone knows that Spring happens in September, right
before we
On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 11:15:19 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> That might be so, and I'm not Maurice or Vladimir, but if I was to
> decide, I wouldn't commit my company to a roadmap that requires forward
> binary compatibility from stdlib vendors without a written declaration
> from each
On 03.05.23 18:03, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 23:16:19 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
>> [1] I also heard the idea to make C++20 mandatory for building Qt, but
>> user projects could continue to use C++17. That would require _forward_
>> binary compatibility between
On 03.05.23 18:24, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 22:51:02 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
>> While I'd rather sooner than later see us switch to C++20, ever since
>> 5.7, we have dropped supported compilers only after an LTS release (5.6,
>> in that case).
>
> We are after
On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 09:23:53 PDT Philippe wrote:
> Not yet available with Apple CLang (I did not test today, but a fews ago).
$ clang -E -include bit -xc++ -std=c++20 /dev/null > /dev/null
$ clang --version; date
Apple clang version 14.0.0 (clang-1400.0.29.202)
Target:
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 23:01:57 PDT Maurice Kalinowski via Development wrote:
> We even have customers who are not able to upgrade to C++17 yet due to
> supply chain issues.
Hello Maurice
Can you provide more details on what the difficulties are and when relief
should
be expected for this?
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 22:51:02 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> While I'd rather sooner than later see us switch to C++20, ever since
> 5.7, we have dropped supported compilers only after an LTS release (5.6,
> in that case).
We are after an LTS release (6.5). We could have done this for
>> header
Not yet available with Apple CLang (I did not test today, but a fews ago).
Philippe
On Tue, 02 May 2023 17:39:01 -0700
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> C++23 is on the way, so maybe it's time for us to raise our minimum to the
> one
> version before that. Let's aim for Qt 6.7, because
On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 05:59:26 PDT Vladimir Minenko via Development wrote:
> “…1. Use C++20 code with Qt - https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-109360
> 2. C++20 is required for the development of Qt itself -
> https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-109361
Which stage are we in? I think we're
On Tuesday, 2 May 2023 23:16:19 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote:
> [1] I also heard the idea to make C++20 mandatory for building Qt, but
> user projects could continue to use C++17. That would require _forward_
> binary compatibility between stdlib implementations. Given that a C++20
> stdlib
Hello all,
on this occasion, I would like to call the Qt Development community for
conscious and pragmatic decisions when it comes to changes in the "minimum C++
standard”.
For some reason, Qt became known to do these switches on some “surprising"
basis. I recall well as a colleague was
On 2023-05-03, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> 13, while Ubuntu 22.04 and Debian 11 (current stable) have GCC 11. Debian
> will
> probably release its next stable before Qt 6.7, though whether it'll still
> upgrade from GCC 12 to 13 I don't know. When we released Qt 6.0, our minimum
Debian 12
Perhaps we should start by using C++20 by default if supported, and then later
require it? It seems we are missing a step.
Best regards
Allan
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
Hi Maurice,
On 03.05.23 08:01, Maurice Kalinowski wrote:
> Basically, the idea from our end has been to take a two-step approach by
> first enabling every developer to use C++20 in their projects and potentially
> add helpers/functionality where possible. Only at a later stage we can then
>
t.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Raising the minimum to C++20
>
> Hi Thiago,
>
> While I'd rather sooner than later see us switch to C++20, ever since
> 5.7, we have dropped supported compilers only after an LTS release (5.6,
> in that case).
>
> Since I ag
Hi Thiago,
While I'd rather sooner than later see us switch to C++20, ever since
5.7, we have dropped supported compilers only after an LTS release (5.6,
in that case).
Since I agree the train for 6.6 has left the station, as Integrity (and
possibly QNX?) don't have an official C++20
C++23 is on the way, so maybe it's time for us to raise our minimum to the one
version before that. Let's aim for Qt 6.7, because feature-freeze for 6.6 is
within one month, and lets us warn our users this is coming.
By this, I mean to:
* modify our build system so Qt compiles with -std=c++20
44 matches
Mail list logo
