[gtkmm] Gtkmm-forge digest, Vol 1 #592 - 3 msgs

[gtkmm-forge-request lists sourceforge net]

Send Gtkmm-forge mailing list submissions to
	gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-forge
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	gtkmm-forge-request lists sourceforge net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	gtkmm-forge-admin lists sourceforge net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gtkmm-forge digest..."


gtkmm-forge is the mailing list that receives gtkmm bug reports from bugzilla.  A daily digest is sent to gtkmm-main, to encourage people to help fixing the bugs.


Today's Topics:

   1. [Bug 86865] Changed - Collection of minor GTK+ bugs that affect gtkmm (bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org)
   2. [Bug 129210] Changed - gtkmm-2.3.1 does not build with gcc 2.95 (bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org)
   3. [Bug 129210] Changed - gtkmm-2.3.1 does not build with gcc 2.95 (bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net, murrayc usa net
Cc: 
Date: Wed,  7 Jan 2004 03:16:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 86865] Changed - Collection of minor GTK+ bugs that affect gtkmm

Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
URL shown below and enter your comments there.

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86865

Changed by murrayc usa net 

--- shadow/86865	Tue Jan  6 13:02:25 2004
+++ shadow/86865.tmp.14758	Wed Jan  7 03:16:47 2004
@@ -10,13 +10,13 @@
 Component: general
 AssignedTo: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net                            
 ReportedBy: murrayc usa net               
 TargetMilestone: ---
 URL: 
 Summary: Collection of minor GTK+ bugs that affect gtkmm
-BugsThisDependsOn: 52877, 63768, 64601, 72426[FIXED]
+BugsThisDependsOn: 52877[FIXED], 63768, 64601, 72426[FIXED]
 
 This umbrella bug helps us to know what GTK+ bugs are relevant to gtkmm. 
 We have probably hacked around these bugs, but we'd still like them to be
 fixed properly.
 
 ------- Additional Comments From murrayc usa net  2003-07-18 09:55 -------


--__--__--

Message: 2
From: bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net, dalgoda ix netcom com
Cc: 
Date: Wed,  7 Jan 2004 08:03:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 129210] Changed - gtkmm-2.3.1 does not build with gcc 2.95

Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
URL shown below and enter your comments there.

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129210

Changed by murrayc usa net 

--- shadow/129210	Wed Dec 17 11:43:31 2003
+++ shadow/129210.tmp.6186	Wed Jan  7 08:03:27 2004
@@ -135,6 +135,11 @@
 Hell, it certainly wasn't obvious to me that any of those files were
 generated when I do something like ``vi +100
 gtkmm-2.3.1/gtk/gtkmm/radioaction.h''
 
 ------- Additional Comments From murrayc usa net  2003-12-17 11:43 -------
 I am happy to apply a patch for this.
+
+------- Additional Comments From murrayc usa net  2004-01-07 08:03 -------
+There is a chance that we will not support gcc 2.96 in future, because
+we might use a newer libsigc++ that can not support it. On the mailing
+list I am asking who needs 2.96 and why? Maybe you could reply to that.


--__--__--

Message: 3
From: bugzilla-daemon widget gnome org
To: gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net, dalgoda ix netcom com
Cc: 
Date: Wed,  7 Jan 2004 14:45:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [gtkmm bugzilla] [Bug 129210] Changed - gtkmm-2.3.1 does not build with gcc 2.95

Please do not reply to this email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the
URL shown below and enter your comments there.

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=129210

Changed by dalgoda ix netcom com 

--- shadow/129210	Wed Jan  7 08:03:27 2004
+++ shadow/129210.tmp.25974	Wed Jan  7 14:45:38 2004
@@ -140,6 +140,81 @@
 I am happy to apply a patch for this.
 
 ------- Additional Comments From murrayc usa net  2004-01-07 08:03 -------
 There is a chance that we will not support gcc 2.96 in future, because
 we might use a newer libsigc++ that can not support it. On the mailing
 list I am asking who needs 2.96 and why? Maybe you could reply to that.
+
+------- Additional Comments From dalgoda ix netcom com  2004-01-07 14:45 -------
+Hi.
+
+I'm on way too many email lists now as it is (if there was an NNTP
+interface available, I'd use it).  So I'll just comment here.  I did
+read the threads in the archives however.
+
+First, let me explain that I have been maintaining my own home-grown
+Linux system since 1994.  It's Linux from scratch before
+linuxfromscratch existed.  I usually keep bleeding edge on most
+things, but lately (last couple of years or so) I have slacked off a
+bit and not followed the 2.5 kernels.  Since the Linux kernel, for a
+long time, did not like to build with any gcc-3 [note: I just checked
+2.6.1-rc2, and at least the docs there still recommend 2.95.x, x>=3],
+I stuck with gcc-2.  This also forced me to stay with glibc-2.2.5. 
+Now, I know that I can run two different versions of gcc, however
+since the same `gcc' cannot  handle -V for 2.x and 3.x (-V only works
+withing the same major). I didn't feel there was anything to really be
+gained by upgrading; it wasn't worth the effort of trying to keep gcc2
+and gcc3 executables.
+
+A few other things pushed this as well.
+
+For instance, gpc only works with gcc2.  And I've always wanted to
+play with gpc (in my ohhhh so ample spare time :-).
+
+It turns out that since gcc2 doesn't support C99 by default, I've
+discovered a lot of code that would not build against non-C99
+compilers being put out by people (stuff in Gnome, stuff on CPAN,
+etc).  To paraphrase a well known saying, "All the world is not gcc."
+ With the fact that a lot of compilers are not C99 capable yet, my
+bleeding edge updates have helped me submit a LOT of patches to
+various projects.  I imagine I could probably configure gcc3 to not do
+ C99 by default, but since I've not looked into upgrading, I've not
+bothered doing that research.
+
+I don't do any C++ programming, so the personal need for the better
+C++ support simply isn't there.
+
+Now, those are the reasons why *I* still use 2.95.*.  Basically it
+comes down to I'm lazy and it's useful for finding issues in the `C'
+world.  But I admit that for C++, it sucks.
+
+Some points to consider though:
+
+Ignore RedHat completely.  2.96 does not exist.  Consider 2.95.3 (or
+2.95.4 which is really cvs-tip from the 2_95 branch).  Just because RH
+doesn't support the older compiler doesn't mean other people don't.
+You can buy support for older RH from Progeny.  Heck, Sun continues to
+build Java against RH6.2 or something like that.  A better solution
+would be to look at what Debian supports in their unstable branch (or
+wherever the comparable gtkmm stuff would live).
+
+All the world is not Linux, either.  Someone pointed out that one of
+the BSD's is using gcc-2.95.*.  What do other current OS's support in
+their C++ environments as far as compatibilty goes?  I think that's a
+far better guage.
+
+If going to require the newer libsigc++, then yeah, definitely go
+ahead an use modern C++ features and don't worry about backwards
+compatibility.
+
+However, I would strongly advise against specifically checking against
+ version numbers of compilers.  That is just too fragile (regressions,
+branching, etc) and only works for g++.  Instead, do feature checks
+against whatever C++ compiler is being used.  As bug, like this one,
+appear, then add it as a feature check and say "Your compiler does not
+support feature XYZ."
+
+Well, that's a lot of babbling.  :->
+
+I guess it could all be summarized with this:  Go ahead and require
+modern C++ features, but try to catch support for them up front with
+autoconf.



--__--__--

_______________________________________________
Gtkmm-forge mailing list
Gtkmm-forge lists sourceforge net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtkmm-forge


End of Gtkmm-forge Digest