Luigi Bianchi

I believe it would be beneficial to discuss a potential migration to a different framework and exchange tips or insights. Transitioning from OWLNext would require significant effort and might even be impractical. Based on my research, while Qt is more powerful, it may require a commercial license insome cases; wxWidgets, on the other hand, is free but less feature-rich. However, I have already identified equivalent classes in wxWidgets for my needs, so if I do migrate, that will be my choice.

Dear Vidar, you raised a very interesting point. Maybe we can arrange a web meeting in which we share ideas, comments, etc... However, I have one big question: which "modern" framework are you considering? wxWidgets? Qt?

Thanks for your support and for your reply! Regarding OWLNext7, are you sure that supporting the modern (clang15) compiler would break compatibility? Changes on my side were really minimal. Things can be different with the new clang versions, but in the case of OWLNext7 I think that only three minimal changes are required. In any case, I can imagine that keeping support to several compilers, OWLNext versions, etc.. could be a nightmare. If anyone is interested, feel free to contact me. I can try...

Hi Vidar, actually I am using owlnext 7 and the Modern compiler of C++ Builder 12.3, that I think it is clang 15. I am not using the OwlNext DLL build mode but the static lib, and all seems to work fine. A few minor changes were necessary: remove the private/except.h dependency (as you mentioned), remove the RTLENTRY macro in one or two files, and I commented out daylight and timezone in time.cpp. I think this is all I had to do with OWLNext7. Of course some changes in the owl.cbproj to redirect...

I tried to recompile the AClock (after removing the sapi code), but it fails to run because of an exception while loading resources. I will try again in the next few days...

Yes, C++ Builder 10 and 11 clang version is 5, while 12 is based on version 15. https://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/Athens/en/Clang-enhanced_C%2B%2B_Compilers

I agree with you. In the previous version clang_major should be 5. I think that >= makes sense!

Yes, clang_major should be the define to use: the Modern compiler should return 15, whereas the old one 5.