openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <>
Subject Re: Weak reference helper implementations
Date Wed, 16 Aug 2017 02:31:25 GMT
I have suggested a refactoring pass to make more use of STL structures 
instead of fixed size, unchecked arrays. Some security problem would be 
caught by array bounds checking.

We have some new volunteers over on the recruitment mailing list. I 
think refactoring would be a good project for getting people involved.

Even if we can't go all the way to C++11, we can make some progress 
towards the 21st century.

On 8/14/2017 12:04 PM, Peter kovacs wrote:
> Sorry, for my bad english.
> I meant that I think that some of the functionality which we have implemented in helper
functions in the past can be retired by using modern c++11 and later standards.
> The code will be smaller,and according to Bjarne Stroustrup also faster.
> I also would like to limit if not ban usage of C code. It makes tmaintainability more
difficult, and I do not see the benefit. Honestly even less then the Java stuff.
> I also don't like helper structures. It is a sign for weak architecture in my eyes. (But
that's naming and structuring of code)
> With our small team, I would opt always for less codelines if possible. Limit is only
> I would like to know if there is support from others to remove those whenever possible
with c++11 Or later code? Or what strategy do we want to head out for.
> I have soon more little time. And then I want to do some stuff. Sadly I will do less
then I want to, but I hope it will go fine.
> All the best.
> Peter
> Am 14. August 2017 19:54:06 MESZ schrieb Marcus <>:
>> Am 14.08.2017 um 19:38 schrieb Peter kovacs:
>>> I am going through the code, when I have little time left.
>> :-)
>>> There is a lot of code I think we don't need the modern
>> implementation should provide us similar functionality.
>> What do you mean with "modern implementation". Should newer libaries
>> and
>> frameworks we use nowadays provide this support?
>>> Is it okay if we target to get rid of such old Code?
>>> Btw. There is a code for a workaround of a bug from gcc version 3.
>> Can we retire that Code?
>> Version 3 started in early 2000. A quick search in our Wiki [1] found
>> only some hits and these are - surprise - very old. But I don't think
>> that these are relevant any more.
>> I cannot lookup what the configure script is tell you as minimal
>> version
>> of gcc. But I would bet it's far away from 3.
>> [1]
>> My 2 ct - as non-developer.
>> Marcus
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message