[Bf-committers] Towards C++11

Jens Verwiebe info at jensverwiebe.de
Sat Jun 7 14:16:04 CEST 2014


Regarding OSX, it should plain work.

I use c++11 based projects since a while without any issues recognized.
Anyway apple clang is based on common clang svn, just with some specials addedas
for example xcode integration etc. ..

Jens




Am 07.06.2014 um 12:04 schrieb Lukas Tönne <lukas.toenne at gmail.com>:

> It's great to see that C++11 has general support. It would be really
> helpful in the depsgraph to deal with closures, among other places. Without
> this we'd have to either tediously backport boost implementation (but why
> reinvent the wheel?), or use lots of bloated cumbersome type definitions
> and C style void* casting (error prone, hides logic). So i'm really happy
> that there are no big showstoppers so far.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Martijn Berger <martijn.berger at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> @Campbell I am pretty sure give how hard Apple is pushing out new releases
>> and given how many people upgrade that we can just assume an llvm/clang
>> 3.0+  feature set for c++11.
>> 
>> I think we should also do this analysis for C99 support and C11 support.
>> There are some other projects out there that use C++11 features (clang is
>> one) and they have made comprehensive analysis of what features they can
>> and do use.
>> 
>> There are some things we can use anyway like noexcept provided we use it
>> like the QT people use it so the code does not require a c++11 compiler but
>> you do get some benefit from compiling with one (
>> http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/qtglobal.html#Q_DECL_NOEXCEPT)
>> 
>> I think getting a sort of caniuse.com  for c/c++ language features on the
>> wiki would be good way forward.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> General +1 to take advantage of C++11 where appropriate,
>>> AFAICS OSX needs some investigation?, otherwise we're close to being
>>> able to support it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> @Tom M: I'm not concerned with static checking tools, mainly because
>>> using C++11 in a few places won't suddenly make static checkers fail
>>> on the rest of our code, eventually they will get updated too.
>>> 
>>> Coverity has support:
>>> https://communities.coverity.com/docs/DOC-1571
>>> clang-static-analyser didn't work well for me last I checked with C++,
>>> but it might have improved in last year or so.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> @Ichthyo: Not being able to build Blender on older Linux isnt such a
>>> big deal since Blender can still run on them, if its important they
>>> can get a new compiler (I did this on a CentOS server, compiling a
>>> newer GCC/Clang isnt that big of a deal).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> @Jeffrey H: C++11 doesn't raise hardware requirements.
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Jeffrey H <italic.rendezvous at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> What about older hardware? I don't know much about C++11, but I would
>>>> imagine it takes advantage of newer processor instruction sets and I
>> know
>>>> new compilers do the same. Would Blender still run on, say, an old
>>> Pentium
>>>> 4? The reason I ask is simply because a large number of users use
>> Blender
>>>> because it's able to run on the proverbial toaster, where Maya and
>> other
>>>> programs cannot. Is this actually an issue or am I just making stuff
>> up?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Ichthyostega <prg at ichthyostega.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Am 06.06.2014 17:54, schrieb Sergey Sharybin:
>>>>>> Why it might be useful?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> C++11 brings some neat syntax and STD library extensions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ..plus the benefit you can get from using functors / closures wisely.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Downside is that we have to cut off some platforms / compilers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Basically we need GCC >= 4.7 and Clang >= 3.0
>>>>> 
>>>>> And anything below that will not be supported anymore.
>>>>> Like RedHat Enterprise Linux. :-P
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sounds like something for Blender 2.8.x
>>>>> 
>>>>>        --Ichthyo
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Jeffrey "Italic_" Hoover
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> - Campbell
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

_____________________________________

Jens Verwiebe
Allerskehre 44  -  22309 Hamburg

Tel.: +49 40 68 78 50
mobil: +49 172 400 49 07
mailto: info at jensverwiebe.de
web:  http://www.jensverwiebe.de
_____________________________________



More information about the Bf-committers mailing list