On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 09:54 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> One thing I would like to give it some reasonable time. I'd still like
> to consult some people.
Please do forward any feedback.
> A couple of programmers questions, though, that will help me to assess the
> actual value of gsystem:
I'll
> From: "Colin Walters"
> So the patch ended up getting reverted, which I'm OK with,
Thank you for understanding. I'll also try to reply so that we have a clean
technical
discussion, separate from my ranting :).
> but what I still want to know is - what are the hurdles I need to jump to move
>
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:59 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:56 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:51 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> >
> > > I don't oppose that.
> >
> > Attached.
>
> Well, *if* we did that, we'd just "git revert " instead of applying
>
> From: "Colin Walters"
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 12:05 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>
> > I, personally, was considering using some faster compiler for
> > development.
> > Pavel Tišnovský wrote an article about tcc and it might save me a
> > lot of
> > time waiting for compilation.
>
> I doubt it
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 12:05 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> I, personally, was considering using some faster compiler for development.
> Pavel Tišnovský wrote an article about tcc and it might save me a lot of
> time waiting for compilation.
I doubt it, though it does depend on what kind of build y
> From: "Colin Walters"
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:47 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>
> > 1) Do we consider the Linux non-GCC community if *they* want to use
> > NetworkManager?
>
> So concretely, the major ones are LLVM and ICC; both of these I know
> both implement a lot of the GCC extensions, a
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:47 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> 1) Do we consider the Linux non-GCC community if *they* want to use
> NetworkManager?
So concretely, the major ones are LLVM and ICC; both of these I know
both implement a lot of the GCC extensions, and they're also C++
compilers, which me
;
> To: "Pavel Simerda"
> Cc: networkmanager-list@gnome.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:19:13 PM
> Subject: Re: __attribute__ ((cleanup) patch
>
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
>
> > I'm not yet even convinced about this
> > We have been too conservative to adopt the C99 standard and now we
> > are brave enough to go for non-standard compiler features.
>
> We already use some C99 features; basic stuff like __func__ and
> snprintf(). I don't have a problem with using "-std=c99" to build
> stuff, but it seems like
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:28 -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> I don't consider this an experiment at this point.
Well, I do think Pavel has a point; it's true that NetworkManager is
an order of magnitude more code than any other project I've used it in
before, and it's larger in terms of people too.
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> I'm not yet even convinced about this because of total lack of documentation
> to be
> found right away.
What do you think about this patch? Does it help address your concerns?
Is there anything that could be clearer?
>From a6f48a9720
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:56 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:51 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> > I don't oppose that.
>
> Attached.
Well, *if* we did that, we'd just "git revert " instead of applying
a patch to do it.
Dan
___
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > From: "Colin Walters"
> > Hi,
>
> Hi, thanks for a quick reply.
>
> > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
> >
> > has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion
> > to this, because it's a very impor
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:51 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> I don't oppose that.
Attached.
>From c43e095419423b36544e221f9f0896d2579fb0a0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Colin Walters
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:53:05 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "core: import libgsystem, use it for
local-allocat
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 10:19 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi,
>
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
>
> has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion to
> this, because it's a very important infrastructural change.
>
> First, one thing that came up is a con
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:19 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> Then why it wasn't good enough for Glib but is good enough for
> NetworkManager? Why
See this thread:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2012-April/msg3.html
Basically, because the GTK+ stack needs to compile with MSVC.
U
> From: "Colin Walters"
> Hi,
Hi, thanks for a quick reply.
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
>
> has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion
> to this, because it's a very important infrastructural change.
>
> First, one thing that came up is a conce
Hi,
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=685440
has a patch which just landed, but I wanted to give wider discussion to
this, because it's a very important infrastructural change.
First, one thing that came up is a concern about a GCC hard dependency.
My understanding is that LLVM implemen
18 matches
Mail list logo
