Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Developing U++ » U++ Developers corner » Possible new package or overhaul proposals for U++ in 2019
Possible new package or overhaul proposals for U++ in 2019 [message #51302] Mon, 04 March 2019 14:49 Go to next message
Oblivion is currently offline  Oblivion
Messages: 561
Registered: August 2007
Location: Turkey
Contributor
Hello,

As it happens I'll have some free time in the first quarter of this year. (This is becoming a habit: ) )
And I thought it would be fun to contribute to my favorite RAD tool.

For example, I use DBUS, the de facto IPC standard on linux destkop, a lot.
But it is tedious to copy-paste the same C code, and then modify it to suit my applications need, over and over again.
So in my opinion it might be a good idea to have a DBUS (a client-side, at least) package (a wrapper or a complete U++ implementation).

Or, IIRC, as I Klugier suggessted somewhere else, a breakpoint table/view (with actions) in TheIDE would be helpful for debugging large applications.
Or, language/translation interface can benefit from an overhaul?

Or anything else?

Whatever it would be, this time I'd like to lay out a plan (its requirements, etc.) collectively.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Oblivion





[Updated on: Mon, 04 March 2019 14:51]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Possible new package or overhaul proposals for U++ in 2019 [message #51307 is a reply to message #51302] Mon, 04 March 2019 18:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 817
Registered: December 2006
Experienced Contributor
Oblivion wrote on Mon, 04 March 2019 08:49

What do you think?

IMHO, it would be great to upgrade PCRE from 8.X to 10.X first because it won't compile with C++17 (Clang, for example, is complaining about the keyword "auto"). I'm not sure this problem is fixed in pcre 10.X, but it worth trying.


Regards,
Novo
Re: Possible new package or overhaul proposals for U++ in 2019 [message #51314 is a reply to message #51307] Tue, 05 March 2019 12:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oblivion is currently offline  Oblivion
Messages: 561
Registered: August 2007
Location: Turkey
Contributor
Novo wrote on Mon, 04 March 2019 20:20
Oblivion wrote on Mon, 04 March 2019 08:49

What do you think?

IMHO, it would be great to upgrade PCRE from 8.X to 10.X first because it won't compile with C++17 (Clang, for example, is complaining about the keyword "auto"). I'm not sure this problem is fixed in pcre 10.X, but it worth trying.


Hello Novo,

You are right. On Linux with CLANG 7.01, the only error I get with the supplied pcre package (in U++ nightly builds) is about the "register" (if you mean "automatic duration") keyword, which is dropped since C++17.
In theory, removing them shouldn't make a big impact (I haven't tested it yet), as the compilers are already free to take that keyword into account or not.
I'll see what I can do about it.

OTOH, Pcre v.10 is not API-compatible with 8.x, so it needs a whole new package. (I need to study it in detail, first).

Best regards,
Oblivion

[Updated on: Tue, 05 March 2019 12:36]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Possible new package or overhaul proposals for U++ in 2019 [message #51316 is a reply to message #51314] Tue, 05 March 2019 17:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 817
Registered: December 2006
Experienced Contributor
Sorry, I meant "register", "auto" is a new keyword ...
Probably, it is easier to remove "register" manually from the PCRE source code. UPP includes source code, so, this should't violate any license.


Regards,
Novo
Re: Possible new package or overhaul proposals for U++ in 2019 [message #51321 is a reply to message #51316] Tue, 05 March 2019 19:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Oblivion is currently offline  Oblivion
Messages: 561
Registered: August 2007
Location: Turkey
Contributor
Please find attached the -hopefully- working, test version.
I replaced the keyword, using:

#if __cplusplus <= 201402L
#define REGISTER register
#else
#define REGISTER
#endif


Best regards,
Oblivion
  • Attachment: pcre.zip
    (Size: 321.92KB, Downloaded 9 times)

[Updated on: Tue, 05 March 2019 19:44]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Possible new package or overhaul proposals for U++ in 2019 [message #51323 is a reply to message #51321] Tue, 05 March 2019 20:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Novo is currently offline  Novo
Messages: 817
Registered: December 2006
Experienced Contributor
Oblivion wrote on Tue, 05 March 2019 13:44
Please find attached the -hopefully- working, test version.

Thanks! It compiles with both Clang and Gcc. IMHO, it is better to remove the "register" keyword. Compilers ignore it these days. It had a lot of meaning back 30 years ago when optimizers petty much didn't exist.


Regards,
Novo
Re: Possible new package or overhaul proposals for U++ in 2019 [message #51539 is a reply to message #51302] Sat, 13 April 2019 13:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 11892
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
These are things I would like to have solved, but do not have resources to:

- Flatpak support.

BTW, what I plan to work on for the next release(s):

- Another round of Core improvements - tweaking memory allocator, CoWork, randomized hashing, maybe Index (say 2019.2)

- I expect to incorporate coolmans's patch tool (2019.2)

- Migrate to GTK3 (say 2019.3 or 2020.1)

[Updated on: Fri, 26 April 2019 10:47]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Possible new package or overhaul proposals for U++ in 2019 [message #51571 is a reply to message #51539] Wed, 17 April 2019 21:28 Go to previous message
Oblivion is currently offline  Oblivion
Messages: 561
Registered: August 2007
Location: Turkey
Contributor
Hello Mirek,

I think flatpak support would be great. It might be a good option on Linux for easy U++ deployment and "first impression", if done right.
I can look into that. (As I am mostly working on linux nowadays.)

Best regards,
Oblivion





[Updated on: Wed, 17 April 2019 21:29]

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Getting hands dirty with Win32 TLS
Next Topic: Two new nasty GCC warnings that I am going to disable
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Jun 20 07:04:04 CEST 2019

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01221 seconds