Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Andre Poenitz wrote: On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 12:29:28PM +0100, Peter Kuemmel wrote: Yes, and all there other changes done in my branch, it builds with the express sp1 compiler. And when someone wanna use a compiler not supporting TR1 he could use boost::tr1. But the code could complete changed

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Andre Poenitz wrote: On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 12:29:28PM +0100, Peter Kuemmel wrote: Yes, and all there other changes done in my branch, it builds with the express sp1 compiler. And when someone wanna use a compiler not supporting TR1 he could use boost::tr1. But the code could complete changed

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:48:22PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Only Visual Studio C++ 2008 Express with SP1 supports TR1, maybe this was the problem. Yes, I knew that was the problem. However, at the time of the meeting SP1 was not available for the Express Edition. Now

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Doex that mean we are free to replace boost::shared_ptr by std::tr1::shared_ptr now? Be aware that this will break compilation on Solaris. But we could use boost as fallback, because it now compiles on Solaris with boost and boost also provides its templates in the tr1 namespace:

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Doex that mean we are free to replace boost::shared_ptr by std::tr1::shared_ptr now? Be aware that this will break compilation on Solaris. But we could use boost as fallback, because it now compiles on Solaris with boost and boost also provides its templates in the tr1 namespace:

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 12:29:28PM +0100, Peter Kuemmel wrote: Yes, and all there other changes done in my branch, it builds with the express sp1 compiler. And when someone wanna use a compiler not supporting TR1 he could use boost::tr1. But the code could complete changed to tr1,

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

> On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:48:22PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >> Only Visual Studio C++ 2008 Express with SP1 supports TR1, > >> maybe this was the problem. > >> > > Yes, I knew that was the problem. However, at the time of the meeting > > SP1 was not available for the Express

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

> > Doex that mean we are free to replace boost::shared_ptr by > > std::tr1::shared_ptr now? > > Be aware that this will break compilation on Solaris. But we could use boost as fallback, because it now compiles on Solaris with boost and boost also provides its templates in the tr1 namespace:

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

> > Doex that mean we are free to replace boost::shared_ptr by > > std::tr1::shared_ptr now? > > Be aware that this will break compilation on Solaris. > But we could use boost as fallback, because it now compiles on Solaris with boost and boost also provides its templates in the tr1

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 12:29:28PM +0100, Peter Kuemmel wrote: > Yes, and all there other changes done in my branch, it builds with > the express sp1 compiler. > > And when someone wanna use a compiler not supporting TR1 he could > use boost::tr1. But the code could complete changed to tr1, >

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

| I tried replacing our boost::shared_ptr with tr1::shared_ptr in | the week before the Meeting (gcc 4.3.x IIRC), and it did not compile. Hmm I have done that for other projects and I had little problem then, I might have a look. Wasn't this the thingie that made me complain that

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:48:22PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Only Visual Studio C++ 2008 Express with SP1 supports TR1, maybe this was the problem. Yes, I knew that was the problem. However, at the time of the meeting SP1 was not available for the Express Edition. Now it is...

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Andre Poenitz schreef: On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:48:22PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Only Visual Studio C++ 2008 Express with SP1 supports TR1, maybe this was the problem. Yes, I knew that was the problem. However, at the time of the meeting SP1 was not available for the

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:56:05PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:48:22PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Only Visual Studio C++ 2008 Express with SP1 supports TR1, maybe this was the problem. Yes, I knew that was the problem. However, at the time of the

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

| I tried replacing our boost::shared_ptr with tr1::shared_ptr in | the week before the Meeting (gcc 4.3.x IIRC), and it did not compile. Hmm I have done that for other projects and I had little problem then, I might have a look. Wasn't this the thingie that made me complain that

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:48:22PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: >> Only Visual Studio C++ 2008 Express with SP1 supports TR1, >> maybe this was the problem. >> > Yes, I knew that was the problem. However, at the time of the meeting > SP1 was not available for the Express Edition. > > Now

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Andre Poenitz schreef: On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:48:22PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Only Visual Studio C++ 2008 Express with SP1 supports TR1, maybe this was the problem. Yes, I knew that was the problem. However, at the time of the meeting SP1 was not available for the

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:56:05PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 02:48:22PM +0100, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >> Only Visual Studio C++ 2008 Express with SP1 supports TR1, > >> maybe this was the problem. > >> > > Yes, I knew that was the problem. However, at the time

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: Andre Poenitz andre.poen...@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) Maybe you are interested in replacing boost with 'real' C++: TR1.

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Vincent van Ravesteijn v.f.vanraveste...@tudelft.nl writes: Wasn't this the thingie that made me complain that Visual Studio C++ 2008 Express Edition wouldn't compile anymore ? Yes, probably. JMarc

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: Andre Poenitz andre.poen...@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) Maybe you are interested in replacing

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: Andre Poenitz writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) Maybe you are interested in replacing boost with 'real' C++: TR1.

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Vincent van Ravesteijn writes: > Wasn't this the thingie that made me complain that Visual Studio C++ > 2008 Express Edition wouldn't compile anymore ? Yes, probably. JMarc

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: Lars Gullik Bjønnes schreef: Andre Poenitz writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) Maybe you are interested in replacing

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would you like me to upgrade the included boost

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Richard Heck wrote: Lars Gullik Bj??nnes wrote: Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org writes: i thought the main reason for including boost in our tree was that we used some nifty new features and it was not usuall that linux distributions have such a new version. but this is long time ago, so this reason no more holds. But it will again if we

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org writes: i thought the main reason for including boost in our tree was that we used some nifty new features and it was not usuall that linux distributions have such a new version. but this is long time ago, so this reason no more holds.

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 01:54:29AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) Maybe you are interested in replacing boost with 'real' C++: TR1. I tried replacing our boost::shared_ptr with tr1::shared_ptr in the week before the Meeting (gcc 4.3.x IIRC),

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:54:31AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Right... I forgot... Qt app now. André attempted to really do this last meeting (using Qt in core) but failed eventually :-) Hm, not really. I seem to remember a consensus that using Qt in core

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Andre Poenitz wrote: On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) Maybe you are interested in replacing boost with 'real' C++: TR1. I tried replacing our boost::shared_ptr with tr1::shared_ptr in the week before the

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wednesday 04 March 2009 00:09:49 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would you like me to upgrade the

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Andre Poenitz andre.poen...@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) Maybe you are interested in replacing boost with 'real' C++: TR1. | I tried replacing our boost::shared_ptr

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

lar...@gullik.net (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | Andre Poenitz | andre.poen...@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de | writes: | | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) Maybe you are interested in replacing boost with 'real'

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:28:33PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: I would like to upgrade to 1.38 first though, and then work on replacing boost libs with libs that exist in tr1 (or the upcoming standard). please, note that there are systems (most notably, Solaris) that still ship gcc 3.4.

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Enrico Forestieri for...@lyx.org writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:28:33PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: I would like to upgrade to 1.38 first though, and then work on replacing boost libs with libs that exist in tr1 (or the upcoming standard). | please, note that there are systems

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:12:16PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Q: Is that a sun provided solaris? Yes, latest solaris 10 also bundles gcc: $ pkginfo | grep gcc system SUNWgcc gcc - The GNU C compiler system SUNWgccruntime GCC Runtime

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Enrico Forestieri for...@lyx.org writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:12:16PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Q: Is that a sun provided solaris? | Yes, latest solaris 10 also bundles gcc: | $ pkginfo | grep gcc | system SUNWgcc gcc - The GNU C compiler |

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:23:26AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: But I must say if that is the most recent developemtn tools on solaris it is hugely useless as a development platform (and I don't belive it is). I get the impression most C++ people on Solaris are using Sun Studio. There

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:23:26AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Enrico Forestieri for...@lyx.org writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:12:16PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Q: Is that a sun provided solaris? | Yes, latest solaris 10 also bundles gcc: | $ pkginfo | grep gcc

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

lar...@gullik.org (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: > In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to > date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others > stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would you like me > to upgrade the included

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Richard Heck wrote: > Lars Gullik Bj??nnes wrote: >> Pavel Sanda writes: >> >> | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: >> In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Pavel Sanda writes: > i thought the main reason for including boost in our tree was that we > used some nifty new features and it was not usuall that linux > distributions have such a new version. but this is long time ago, so > this reason no more holds. But it will again if we

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Pavel Sanda writes: > > i thought the main reason for including boost in our tree was that we > > used some nifty new features and it was not usuall that linux > > distributions have such a new version. but this is long time ago, so > > this reason no

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 01:54:29AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Pavel Sanda writes: > > | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > >> In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to > >> date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others > >>

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) > > Maybe you are interested in replacing boost with 'real' C++: TR1. I tried replacing our boost::shared_ptr with tr1::shared_ptr in the week before the Meeting (gcc 4.3.x

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:54:31AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> Right... I forgot... Qt app now. > > André attempted to really do this last meeting (using Qt in core) but > failed eventually :-) Hm, not really. I seem to remember a consensus that using Qt in

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Andre Poenitz wrote: On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) Maybe you are interested in replacing boost with 'real' C++: TR1. I tried replacing our boost::shared_ptr with tr1::shared_ptr in the week before the

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wednesday 04 March 2009 00:09:49 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to > date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others > stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would you like me > to upgrade

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Andre Poenitz writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: >>> I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) >> >> Maybe you are interested in replacing boost with 'real' C++: TR1. > | I tried replacing our

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

lar...@gullik.net (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes: | Andre Poenitz | | writes: > | | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 08:20:34AM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote: I think I'll just go and hide beneath my rock again ;-) >>> >>> Maybe you are interested in replacing

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:28:33PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > I would like to upgrade to 1.38 first though, and then work on replacing > boost libs with libs that exist in tr1 (or the upcoming standard). please, note that there are systems (most notably, Solaris) that still ship gcc

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Enrico Forestieri writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 09:28:33PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> >> I would like to upgrade to 1.38 first though, and then work on replacing >> boost libs with libs that exist in tr1 (or the upcoming standard). > | please, note that there are

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:12:16PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > > Q: Is that a sun provided solaris? Yes, latest solaris 10 also bundles gcc: $ pkginfo | grep gcc system SUNWgcc gcc - The GNU C compiler system SUNWgccruntime GCC

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Enrico Forestieri writes: | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:12:16PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> >> Q: Is that a sun provided solaris? > | Yes, latest solaris 10 also bundles gcc: > | $ pkginfo | grep gcc | system SUNWgcc gcc - The GNU C compiler

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:23:26AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > But I must say if that is the most recent developemtn tools on solaris > it is hugely useless as a development platform (and I don't belive it > is). I get the impression most C++ people on Solaris are using Sun Studio. >

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:23:26AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Enrico Forestieri writes: > > | On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:12:16PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > >> > >> Q: Is that a sun provided solaris? > > > | Yes, latest solaris 10 also bundles gcc: > > > | $

Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

(Hi all!) I see that Fedora 11 is doing rebuilding of all packages with gcc 4.4. and that LyX is failing that. I though I should test it on my Fedora 10 box, and right enough I get the same errors. In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.)

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would you like me to upgrade the included boost to boost 1.38? the

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would you like me to upgrade the

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q:

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q:

Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

(Hi all!) I see that Fedora 11 is doing rebuilding of all packages with gcc 4.4. and that LyX is failing that. I though I should test it on my Fedora 10 box, and right enough I get the same errors. In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.)

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to > date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others > stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would you like me > to upgrade the included boost to boost 1.38?

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Pavel Sanda writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: >> In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to >> date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others >> stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would you like me >> to

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Pavel Sanda writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q:

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Pavel Sanda writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: Would

Re: Lyx + Boost and gcc 4.4

Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: Pavel Sanda writes: | Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: In Fedora 11 the errors might probably be fixed by usinging a more up to date boost (1.38 f.ex.) and --without-included-boost. For all others stuck with an older boost no such luck. So I have a Q: