Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "fatalistic".
2018 May 10
1
Using C++14 code in LLVM
...m> wrote:
>>
>> If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just
>> worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year
>> discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking
>> double the time.
>
> Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-)
> But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve
> learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code
> churn we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14,
> drop unnecessary co...
2006 May 06
3
Kernel 2.6.15 + Google Earth
I recently upgraded wine from 0.9.7 to 0.9.12 and while checking out that things
were working I started up Google Earth but had the following error in terminal:
Message from syslogd@TheVoid at Sun May 7 02:40:26 2006 ...
TheVoid kernel: Bad page state at free_hot_cold_page (in process
'GoogleEarth.exe', page c125be60)
Message from syslogd@TheVoid at Sun May 7 02:40:26 2006 ...
TheVoid
2018 May 10
0
Using C++14 code in LLVM
...AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>
> If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time.
Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-)
But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop unnecessary code, upgrade various...
2018 May 10
3
Using C++14 code in LLVM
...;zturner at google.com> wrote:
>
> If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry
> that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so
> that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time.
>
>
> Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-)
> But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve
> learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn
> we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop
> unnecessary co...
2018 May 10
0
Using C++14 code in LLVM
...urner at google.com<mailto:zturner at google.com>> wrote:
If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time.
Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-)
But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop unnecessary code, upgrade various...
2018 May 10
2
Using C++14 code in LLVM
...gle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that
> 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any
> actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time.
>
>
>
> Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-)
>
> But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve learned
> to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn we’ll
> encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop unnecessary
&g...
2018 May 10
0
Using C++14 code in LLVM
...;>
>> If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry that
>> 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so that any
>> actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-)
>>
>> But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve learned
>> to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn we’ll
>> encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, dro...
2018 May 11
1
Using C++14 code in LLVM
...gle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry
> that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so
> that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time.
>
>
>
> Such a fatalistic view, let’s trust ourselves to be better next time ;-)
>
> But seriously: we can learn from moving to C++14, and use what we’ve
> learned to move to C++17 faster next time. Also consider the code churn
> we’ll encounter as we fix incompatibilities with C++11 / C++14, drop
> unnecessa...
2018 May 10
5
Using C++14 code in LLVM
If it's the only thing we can agree then I'll take it, but I just worry
that 3 years from now we're going to start another 3 year discussion, so
that any actual move to C++17 would end up taking double the time.
Are the issues specific to C++17 additions to the standard library? What
if you allow C++17 language features but not C++17 library features? I'm
guessing this is too