search for: disccus

how could i play ogg/flac files? would it be possible to add flac support to the ogg libaries? i would like to stream ogg/flac files over an icecast2 / jroar server :).

how could i play ogg/flac files? would it be possible to add flac support to the ogg libaries? i would like to stream ogg/flac files over an icecast2 / jroar server :).

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 12:05:58PM +0800, Kirby Zhou wrote: > guestfish takes legacy qemu instead of kvm? > ]# rpm -q libguestfs --requires | fgrep qemu > qemu-system-x86 >= 0.10.5 To make it clear, this is EPEL-5. There was some still unresolved problem with adding a dependency on KVM: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2982 As a result, we have to depend on qemu (software

...n the issue. Honestly, MSVC on Windows is "fully C++17 conformant" [1]. The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. Just my 2c. [1] https://blogs.m...

...e. Honestly, MSVC on Windows is "fully C++17 conformant" [1]. > > The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. WebKit’s move to C++17 hasn’t b...

...MSVC on Windows is "fully > C++17 conformant" [1]. > > The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of > GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we > skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion > about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more > reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. > They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're > gonna move, we should go all the way. > > &gt...

...y >> C++17 conformant" [1]. >> >> The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version >> of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that >> we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year >> disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody >> has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving >> to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So >> if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. >&...

...n the issue. Honestly, MSVC on Windows is "fully C++17 conformant" [1]. The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. WebKit’s move to C++17 hasn’t b...

...y >> C++17 conformant" [1]. >> >> The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version >> of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that >> we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year >> disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody >> has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving >> to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So >> if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. >&...

...n the issue. Honestly, MSVC on Windows is "fully C++17 conformant" [1]. The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. WebKit’s move to C++17 hasn’t b...

...MSVC on Windows is "fully > C++17 conformant" [1]. > > The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of > GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we > skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion > about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more > reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. > They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're > gonna move, we should go all the way. > > &gt...

...stly, MSVC on Windows is "fully C++17 conformant" [1]. >> >> The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. > > WebKit’s move to C++1...

...dows is "fully C++17 conformant" [1]. >>>> >>>> The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. >>> >>> WebK...

...ndows is "fully C++17 > conformant" [1]. > > > > The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of > GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we > skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion > about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more > reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They > only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna > move, we should go all the way. > > &g...

..."fully C++17 conformant" [1]. >>>>> >>>>> The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. >>>> >>>&...

...y >> C++17 conformant" [1]. >> >> The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version >> of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that >> we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year >> disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody >> has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving >> to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So >> if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. >&...

..."fully C++17 conformant" [1]. >>>>> >>>>> The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna move, we should go all the way. >>>> >>>&g...

...gt;> conformant" [1]. >> >> >> >> The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of >> GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we >> skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion >> about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more >> reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. They >> only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're gonna >> move, we should go all the w...

...ndows is "fully > C++17 conformant" [1]. > > > > The issue has and always will be GCC. Given that a bump in any version of > GCC has been (and will remain) difficult for some time, I propose that we > skip C++14 and move to 17. We don't want to have a multi-year disccusion > about this again any time soon, and from what I gather, nobody has any more > reservations about moving to C++17 than they do about moving to C++14. > They only have reservations about moving to anything at all. So if we're > gonna move, we should go all the way. > > &gt...

Once again, I'm totally down for this and think we should do it. I worry about windows, but ... Zach: How's windows c++14 support looking? -eric On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:01 AM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi folks! > > Six more months have come and gone, and maybe we could move LLVM to C++14 > now? > > The issues I picked out