search for: eqiv

...elease less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for example, we'd support -C++20 if all compilers had std=c++20 or eqiv, but NOT std=c++2a). The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: GCC5.1/Clang3.6. We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8 /End Proposal *: To Be Bikeshed

...* years old to give our users > sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our > dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially > supported by the collection of compilers (for example, we'd support -C++20 > if all compilers had std=c++20 or eqiv, but NOT std=c++2a). > > The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: > GCC5.1/Clang3.6. We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8 > > /End Proposal > > > *: To Be Bikeshed > _______________________________________________ > LLVM De...

...elease less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for example, we'd support -C++20 if all compilers had std=c++20 or eqiv, but NOT std=c++2a). > > The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: > GCC5.1/Clang3.6. We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8 Historically 3/1.5 would have caused us problems on FreeBSD, but we're moving to supporting all architectures via...

...elease less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for example, we'd support -C++20 if all compilers had std=c++20 or eqiv, but NOT std=c++2a). > > The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: GCC5.1/Clang3.6. We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8 Historically 3/1.5 would have caused us problems on FreeBSD, but we're moving to supporting all architectures via an ex...

...elease less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for example, we'd support -C++20 if all compilers had std=c++20 or eqiv, but NOT std=c++2a). The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: GCC5.1/Clang3.6. We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8 /End Proposal *: To Be Bikeshed _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.o...

...elease less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for example, we'd support -C++20 if all compilers had std=c++20 or eqiv, but NOT std=c++2a). >> >> The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: >> GCC5.1/Clang3.6. We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8 > > Historically 3/1.5 would have caused us problems on FreeBSD, but we're moving to supporting...

...elease less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for example, we'd support -C++20 if all compilers had std=c++20 or eqiv, but NOT std=c++2a). > >> > >> The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: > >> GCC5.1/Clang3.6. We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8 > > > > Historically 3/1.5 would have caused us problems on FreeBSD, but we...

...ive our users >> sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our >> dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially >> supported by the collection of compilers (for example, we'd support -C++20 >> if all compilers had std=c++20 or eqiv, but NOT std=c++2a). >> >> The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: >> GCC5.1/Clang3.6. We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8 >> >> /End Proposal >> >> >> *: To Be Bikeshed >> ________________________...

Hi all, this is OT, but maybe someone can give me a clue. I've got data from eye tracker experiments (750 data points). These figures show how the data lock like |** * ***** |*** ****** | ** **** | * * | | * * | | * |-------------- |--------------- Y axes display velocity, x axes display time, * are the data points.

...elease less than 1.5* years old to give our users sufficient time to transition/upgrade their compilers. Finally, our dependent C++ version will be the best released standard officially supported by the collection of compilers (for example, we'd support -C++20 if all compilers had std=c++20 or eqiv, but NOT std=c++2a). > > The 3-years/1.5 years would result in our minimum GCC/Clang becoming: GCC5.1/Clang3.6. We would WARN on anything older than GCC7.1/Clang3.8 > > /End Proposal > > > *: To Be Bikeshed > _______________________________________________ > LLVM D...