[Development] -no-stl no longer supported
alexis.menard at openbossa.org
Thu Mar 8 15:34:04 CET 2012
2012/3/8 Diego Iastrubni <diegoiast at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Alexis Menard >
>> > Actually, I tested about 2 years ago the Digital Mars C++ compiler. This
>> > failed nicely and was not able to compile the container classe, and you
>> > were
>> > aware of this :)
>> > I might be bored again and test if the compiler now works better. Is
>> > anyone
>> > interested?
>> Realistically speaking how many users we are targeting here?
> 2, Maybe PI, probably E people :)
>> Last version was almost 2 years ago. Does it even run on modern
>> Windows? I'm not even sure its status concerning 64 bits.
>> Not even yourself wants to try it again. You even mentioned that you
>> *tested* it so I believe you don't even ship your app code with this
> I was between jobs 2 years ago and got bored. That time I started looking
> also at clang. I did not ship any code compiled using any of those
> Back then the compiler I tested did not support for partial templates. I see
> messages there claiming to support C++0x. Hell, if it works, do you really
> care adding 2-3 new qmake.specs?
And who will maintain them when new stuff is added/refactored/renamed?
You can't just drop files like this...
>> So maintaining some stuff just for the sake of it leads to wasted
>> effort where people could be *more* useful.
> You are under the impression that my working on this on my spare time, not
> paid by anyone will take time from this project. I kindly disagree.
If you contribute them on your spare time fine, but what I want to
make sure is that we are clear on the level of support for it.
>> It's in Qt4 the way it is, then it's fine.
>> We supported way too long broken and old compilers.
> So, the barrier for Qt5 is a compiler that supports C++0x? Not a bad idea.
I didn't said anything about C++0x and I seriously don't think this
should be the barrier. I was more talking about compiler buggy with
templates for example.
> If we want to build modern applications, on moden operating systems, then
> modern tools are a must.
Yes but is this compiler fits in the "modern" category?
> From my point of view as a developer - Qt5.0, Qt5.1 will be more or less
> beta designed for earliy adopters which will have new tools anyway. If by
> the time Qt5.2 comes there are new compilers witghout C++0x support - they
> can die cause lack of market.
You focus on the C++0x support that was absolutely not my point here.
I think we should support Qt5 without
C++0x as it was a fresh standard and that it will take time to get it
implemented correctly and properly and all major compilers.
The fact that you can use Qt5 with C++0x support is a plus and should
be considered like this for now.
> I assume Qt4 will not vanish for the next 2 years, and by then Qt5+C++0x
> compilers will be more mature and popular, so people still have tools to
> develop great applications. Yes, Qt4 is great, it actually runs my PC with
> Again - just my point of view as indipendent developer. Maybe more
> commercial customers will have different opinions then me.
> With some luck maybe Qt5 will push the usage of C++0x and leaving legacy
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
Alexis Menard (darktears)
INdT Recife Brazil
More information about the Development