kicad-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
C++ conformance (was [Merge] lp:~amir-mohammadkhani/kicad/ash into lp:kicad)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 09/28/2010 07:52 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 09/28/2010 11:14 AM, Amir Mohammadkhani-Aminabadi wrote:
>> Amir Mohammadkhani-Aminabadi has proposed merging lp:~amir-mohammadkhani/kicad/ash into lp:kicad.
>> Requested reviews:
>> kicad-testing-committers (kicad-testing-committers)
>> Var. compile and cmake fixes for win/vs2010
> I think we are reaching the point where we need a separate branch for
> visual c++.
> Although in this specific case it seems like a patch could be made for
> CMake, not Kicad.
> I have no interest in continuing to bend over for Visual C++.
> Another option is to simply drop support for it, which would be my first
> I say no to this patch.
I'm sorry to just jump in, but what was the problem with Blinded C++ in
the first place?
Is it not compiling? I wouldn't like to see kicad deviate from standard
C/C++ (name your favorite standard), and if it doesn't, there shouldn't
be an issue with other compilers. If Blinded C++ is incapable of
handling the standards, then, and only then we shouldn't even consider
- -pedantic -std=c++98
to CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS and recompiled to see if everything was in order. The
amount of warnings I got is worrying. Most of the ones I was able to
catch were extra ";" or extra "," , or "long long" not being supported
by the standard.Kicad does not conform to standard C++, and it makes me
wonder whether there are more mundane warnings that I missed.
On a side note,
- -std=c++0x generates an error that's not even from a kicad file.
Shouldn't this be cleaned up before deciding if other compilers are crap?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----