openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Seidel <>
Subject Re: C++ standard when building OpenOffice
Date Tue, 05 Nov 2019 18:17:24 GMT
Hi Don,

Am 05.11.19 um 19:02 schrieb Don Lewis:
> On  5 Nov, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> what if we require LLVM as build requirement and build OpenOffice only
>> with LLVM instead of preinstalled gcc?
>> the project provides packages for Windows, Linux (And here RHEL 7.4) and
>> mac. Cygwin offers Version 8.01
>> Debian offers also LLVM as Version 8.
>> It would just work around the issue we currently face, while increasing
>> the build requirements only by little.
> That's not likely to be helpful.  Mixing an application built with LLVM
> with system C++ libraries compiled with gcc is likely to fail.  It is
> best to use the same compiler for everything.  Also, using a non-default
> compiler would require the user to install the matching C++ runtime
> libraries.
> What set me on this quest was trying to build 4.1.7 with gcc on
> FreeBSD/powerpc, where LLVM is not quite ready for prime time.
> Either compiler can generally be persuaded to work.  In C++98 mode, LLVM
> can use it's regular C++ STL headers, whereas GCC needs to use the boost
> TR1 headers for STL.  In C++11 mode, either compiler can use the C++ STL
> headers, but our code isn't quite ready for C++11, and we can't yet make 
> the changes for C++11 that are not compatible with the older compilers
> on some platforms.
>> We have to drop CentOS6 support completely, as a price, but I think this
>> is already decided.
> Dropping support for CentOS 6 for 4.2.x would be nice for a couple of
> reasons.  GCC on CentOS 6 doesn't support C++11, and CentOS 6 is our
> last platform that doesn't have the new gstreamer.  But if we don't
> support CentOS 6 for 4.2.x, then we probably need to extend support for
> 4.1.x.

To my knowledge we build 4.2.x on CentOS 7.

4.1.x is still built on CentOS 5.



>> I could not figure out if OS/2 can use LLVM. @Yuri do you think that
>> would be fine for the OS/2 development?
>> It would simplify things a lot, and we can jump up the standard requirement.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message