stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <>
Subject Re: STDCXX forks
Date Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:44:53 GMT
On 08/31/12 08:58, "C. Bergström" wrote:
> On 08/31/12 07:40 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>> I have seen two forks on github, one belonging to C. Bergstrom/Pathscale and the
other to Stefan Teleman.
>> The first one contains a number of genuine code changes outside the Apache repository,
but without canonical and meaningful commit comments, and without accompanying test cases.
> We can help clean this up if it makes a real difference
>> Some carry what seem to be bug id's from a private bug database. Some of the changes,
e.g., 84d01405124b8c08bb43fdc3755ada2592449727
> iirc we renamed the files because of some problem with cmake - it was trying to compile
those files instead of treating them like headers.
>> , fa9a45fb36e45b71ba6b4ae93b50bd6679549420, seem odd.
> I forget why we did this tbh - I'll try to get an answer in case it comes up again as
a question
>> Are you guys dropping support for any  platforms?
> Not intentionally - We are using/testing this on Solaris, FBSD and Linux - We may add
OSX/Win to that list soon, but I can't promise at this point.  For targets we only are able
to test x86 and x86_64

Hi Christopher,

I finished looking though the github changes. If you are interested in contributing some of
those changes back, as complete patches [1], I would volunteer my time to promptly review
them and work with you to get them in, as needed.

In the meantime, if you will, could you please elaborate on the two changes mentioned above?
The first one changes the traditional file extension on the template implementation files,
the second affects the library building on platforms like I mentioned in another post. AFAIK
STDCXX does not implement or follow Boost conventions and/or library file structure.





View raw message