|
Josh @ Dreamland
|
|
Reply #1 Posted on: October 26, 2014, 07:19:11 pm |
|
|
Prince of all Goldfish
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2950
|
Go for it. I might want std::tie. And I'm curious if we'll get a performance hike for using unordered_map instead of map for instances and var.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
|
|
|
Goombert
|
|
Reply #2 Posted on: October 26, 2014, 07:29:33 pm |
|
|
Location: Cappuccino, CA Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 2993
|
I am specifically looking to repackage the Portable ZIP with MinGW64, but it didn't go so well.
|
|
|
Logged
|
I think it was Leonardo da Vinci who once said something along the lines of "If you build the robots, they will make games." or something to that effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sorlok_reaves
|
|
Reply #6 Posted on: October 27, 2014, 02:51:13 pm |
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 260
|
I think the idea is that C++11 support is solid at this point, while C++14 is still relatively untested. (So if someone can't compile ENIGMA, we now have to debug specific compiler versions, which can be annoying.)
But, then again, C++14 is only a minor addition on top of C++11. My intuition would be to ask "do you need or want anything from C++14? If not..."
Also, C++0x is, for all intents and purposes, C++11. I think the argument here is to switch from C++03, since C++0x/11 has lots of fun shiny things.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
TheExDeus
|
|
Reply #7 Posted on: October 28, 2014, 08:56:32 am |
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1860
|
What's the point of maintaining C++0x compatibility? We didn't even have that. We had classic C++03 which doesn't require any GCC flags. My opinion doesn't carry much weight on this, but I'm 100% agreed with switching to C++11. Everyone's opinion is important here. You do contribute to ENIGMA a lot, especially in parser and variable side of things, both of which can actually benefit from C++11. Like Josh said, all of the std::map stuff should just be changed to unordered_map when it makes sense. It's often a lot faster. I just did the switch in my branch. I will do some linux tests and try to fix the GL3 debug mode on it. If I'm successful I will ask people to test it again. And then I can maybe finally merge it.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Josh @ Dreamland
|
|
Reply #8 Posted on: December 07, 2014, 12:10:07 pm |
|
|
Prince of all Goldfish
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2950
|
We're getting users with build errors because something isn't correctly configured to use ISO 11. On Windows, if I'm not mistaken. Is there an INI somewhere they can add --std=c++11 to?
|
|
|
Logged
|
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
|
|
|
TheExDeus
|
|
Reply #9 Posted on: December 07, 2014, 04:13:50 pm |
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1860
|
I'm also on windows and don't experience any problems. There is no INI. We just need it in windows gcc.ey. There cxxflags: is set to -std=c++11 -I../Additional/i686-w64-mingw32/include . There was a makefile problem recently though, that caused many flags to be ignored. It was fixed here: https://github.com/enigma-dev/enigma-dev/commit/e05915f931cf69115738e1ae68f3eab47eeff8e8Is there a specific error message?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Josh @ Dreamland
|
|
Reply #10 Posted on: December 07, 2014, 05:12:32 pm |
|
|
Prince of all Goldfish
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2950
|
After attempts to glean more information, I believe the best course of action is to wait for more problems or assume this is solved. Ignore me.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"That is the single most cryptic piece of code I have ever seen." -Master PobbleWobble "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall, Friends of Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|