U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Re: U++ 2017 beta [message #47166 is a reply to message #47155]

Sun, 25 December 2016 08:02

MrSarup
Messages: 30
Registered: December 2016

Member

Hello Mirek,

Thanks for your answer.
mirek wrote on Thu, 22 December 2016 23:00

All examples are test-build each night (I mean stuff from 'example' and 'reference' folders/nests) and current test-suite does not show any problems. If there are any of them that do not build, please let me know, it must be some interesting quirk or platform incompatibility. (Please report your platform).
Mirek

I am working with U++ on Windows 7 Ultimate 64bits and Centos 7 64bits. Until now, I have build many on my windows workstation and found that some did not complete the build. Most likely they were not under 'example' but one or more under 'reference', however I cannot exactly remember. If this helps, I would be more than happy to execute these one again on my platform and report it here.

mirek wrote on Thu, 22 December 2016 23:00

Bazaar is community submitted content, bar is lower. I am unhappy about status of many things there too, but not brave enough to start deleting things...
Mirek

That is true. How about creating "beta-xxx" in the assembly, or any other connotation in the event if one package fails to be built. If the report is confirmed, then one could - instead of deleting it completely - move it under a beta assembly. For e.g. there is under the assembly:

Bazaar-Stable
Bazaar-Beta-Windows
Bazaar-Beta-Linux

Upon confirmation, that package gets moved under the beta assembly. Upon enhancement, one could bring it back again. Here, one knows exactly what is under beta under a platform and the author needs to work on it.

mirek wrote on Thu, 22 December 2016 23:00

It was more C++11 compatibility issue than concept change.
Mirek

In my other thread, I had problems to build theIDE under Centos 7. This I managed to build somehow.

After built, I found that certain dir and files did not get created under the upp dir but got spread out. For e.g. /root/MyApp/, /root/upp.out/, /root/theide, /root/umk got built/copied/created under /root whereas all other dir/files under /root/upp.

Then, I needed to bring them back all under ---> /root/upp. Thereafter, I have changed the path in all *var files from /root/.upp/theide/*.var for e.g.:

OUTPUT = "/root/upp.out";
to
OUTPUT = "/root/upp/upp.out";

Is this a bug somewhere that it creates some files and dirs outside of /upp installation?

The second thing:

In the GCC.bm and CLANG.bm created, the parameter shows the following:

COMMON_CPP_OPTIONS = "-std=c++0x";

Should it not be focusing on c++11?

Report message to a moderator