Re: [SyncEvolution] failed to compile 1.3
Patrick,
I've been able to compile 1.3 successfully with the latest boost 1.49
instead of 1.48. So it might be wise to mention this as a requirement
for building syncevolution with gcc >=4.7. Thanks for you help!
Regards,
Vlad.
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 18:38 +0200, Vladimir Elisseev wrote:
I have:
dev-libs/boost-1.48
sys-devel/binutils-2.22.90
both compiled with the old gcc (4.6.3).
I don't thinks so, but maybe recompiling system packages with the new
gcc helps?
Regards,
Vlad.
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 18:13 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 17:50 +0200, Vladimir Elisseev wrote:
> > Thanks for the tip! This isn't boost, but new gcc (migrated from 4.6.3
> > to 4.7.1). Since it's not syncevolution related, I'll try to
investigate
> > what is the problem. Sorry for taking your time.
>
> Not at all, thanks for reporting the problem. It may be relevant for
> other people compiling SyncEvolution.
>
> Note that it still could be a bug outside of gcc that is merely
> triggered by the compiler update.
>
> I have found (and fixed) bugs in SyncEvolution where the order of global
> instance construction was relevant. Those bugs showed up only after a
> change in the toolchain reordered global initialization. However, as I
> said in the previous mail, in this case I think SyncEvolution is doing
> the right thing (forcing construction of instances by embedding them in
> a function).
>
> What is your version of Boost and binutils?
>
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
SyncEvolution(a)syncevolution.org
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution