You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to log4cxx-dev@logging.apache.org by Florian Seydoux <fs...@apache.org> on 2014/01/11 13:03:29 UTC
To be aligned: which C++ dialect for log4cxx
Hi all,
a short question: do wee all agree to ~restrict the codebase to ansi C++
(ie. -std=c++98) without 03/11 extension?
(despite it's not enforced on gcc compilation)
--
flo
Re: To be aligned: which C++ dialect for log4cxx
Posted by Florian Seydoux <fs...@apache.org>.
On 14.01.2014 15:47, Pedro Lamarão wrote:
> There are no 2003 extensions.
> ISO C++ 2003 is the same as ISO C++ 1998 with the incorporation of
> various errata.
>
> Perhaps you are worried about Visual C++ 6.
@Pedro
Ok, it's true that I was mainly thinking to the tr1 dialect... sorry for
the approximation.
Btw, I'm effectively worried for the compatibility with some microsoft
chains (but not VC6), which, unfortunately, doesn't fulfill any of the
standards, but instead provides a partial mix of them.
But not only - putting more attempt to the compilation chain can
simplify our life, but also restrict the availability/portability of the
lib.
On 14.01.2014 17:32, chand priyankara wrote:
> What you really mean by '~restrict'?
> Is it for some recent releases, or just like forever?
>
> And whats the actual root cause to get in to this kind of a problem?
@Chand
By "not ~restrict", I mean no active actions to ensure the strict
conformance, but avoiding explicit breakage, like the codefix
proposed with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGCXX-390.
--
flo
Re: To be aligned: which C++ dialect for log4cxx
Posted by Florian Seydoux <fs...@apache.org>.
On 14.01.2014 15:47, Pedro Lamarão wrote:
> There are no 2003 extensions.
> ISO C++ 2003 is the same as ISO C++ 1998 with the incorporation of
> various errata.
>
> Perhaps you are worried about Visual C++ 6.
@Pedro
Ok, it's true that I was mainly thinking to the tr1 dialect... sorry for
the approximation.
Btw, I'm effectively worried for the compatibility with some microsoft
chains (but not VC6), which, unfortunately, doesn't fulfill any of the
standards, but instead provides a partial mix of them.
But not only - putting more attempt to the compilation chain can
simplify our life, but also restrict the availability/portability of the
lib.
On 14.01.2014 17:32, chand priyankara wrote:
> What you really mean by '~restrict'?
> Is it for some recent releases, or just like forever?
>
> And whats the actual root cause to get in to this kind of a problem?
@Chand
By "not ~restrict", I mean no active actions to ensure the strict
conformance, but avoiding explicit breakage, like the codefix
proposed with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOGCXX-390.
--
flo
Re: To be aligned: which C++ dialect for log4cxx
Posted by chand priyankara <ch...@engineering.com>.
Hi,
What you really mean by '~restrict'?
Is it for some recent releases, or just like forever?
And whats the actual root cause to get in to this kind of a problem?
regards,
*Chand Priyankara* [image: Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/chand.priyankara>
[image: LinkedIn] <http://lk.linkedin.com/in/chandpriyankara> [image:
Blogger] <http://chandpriyankara.blogspot.com/> [image: Google
Plus]<http://plus.google.com/104246340732624023499>
|BSc(Eng) - Electrical & Information
|(094) 773-361-566
|chand@engineering.com
|http://chandpriyankara.blogspot.com
<http://www.iucnredlist.org/amazing-species>sent via internet
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Pedro Lamarão <pedro.lamarao@prodist.com.br
> wrote:
> Em 11/01/2014 10:03, Florian Seydoux escreveu:
>
> Hi all,
>> a short question: do wee all agree to ~restrict the codebase to ansi C++
>> (ie. -std=c++98) without 03/11 extension?
>> (despite it's not enforced on gcc compilation)
>>
>>
> There are no 2003 extensions.
> ISO C++ 2003 is the same as ISO C++ 1998 with the incorporation of various
> errata.
>
> Perhaps you are worried about Visual C++ 6.
> It doesn't and could never fully support ISO C++ 1998 or ISO C++ 2003,
> because it was released before those standards were completed.
> Is this the case?
>
> P.
>
Re: To be aligned: which C++ dialect for log4cxx
Posted by Pedro Lamarão <pe...@prodist.com.br>.
Em 11/01/2014 10:03, Florian Seydoux escreveu:
> Hi all,
> a short question: do wee all agree to ~restrict the codebase to ansi C++
> (ie. -std=c++98) without 03/11 extension?
> (despite it's not enforced on gcc compilation)
>
There are no 2003 extensions.
ISO C++ 2003 is the same as ISO C++ 1998 with the incorporation of
various errata.
Perhaps you are worried about Visual C++ 6.
It doesn't and could never fully support ISO C++ 1998 or ISO C++ 2003,
because it was released before those standards were completed.
Is this the case?
P.
Re: To be aligned: which C++ dialect for log4cxx
Posted by Rhys Ulerich <rh...@gmail.com>.
>> a short question: do wee all agree to ~restrict the codebase to ansi C++
>> (ie. -std=c++98) without 03/11 extension?
I'm fine with 98.
- Rhys
Re: To be aligned: which C++ dialect for log4cxx
Posted by Thorsten Schöning <ts...@am-soft.de>.
Guten Tag Florian Seydoux,
am Samstag, 11. Januar 2014 um 13:03 schrieben Sie:
> a short question: do wee all agree to ~restrict the codebase to ansi C++
> (ie. -std=c++98) without 03/11 extension?
I'm not sure about 03, but the support for 11 is pretty bad for my
compiler, therefore +1 from me.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thorsten Schöning
--
Thorsten Schöning E-Mail:Thorsten.Schoening@AM-SoFT.de
AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/
Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55
Fax...............05151- 9468- 88
Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04
AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln
AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow