On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:47:19AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote:> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:31:07AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 03:22:50PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > qt4-x11 needs to be rebuilt on m68k, anything using it currently will > > > give errors that libXcursor.la can''t be found. > > > > Anyone know whether GCC 4.1 has the same issues? If not, should we > > > proceed to build QT with GCC 4.1, or is that not advisable? > > > > At least it shouldn''t take long to find out if that ICE applies. > > In point of fact it doesn''t fail there with gcc-4.1. Now how would the > qt folks feel about us compiling with gcc-4.1?Only one way to find out. QT/KDE folks, your opinion please? -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:47:19AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:31:07AM -0500, Stephen R Marenka wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 03:22:50PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> > > qt4-x11 needs to be rebuilt on m68k, anything using it currently will >> > > give errors that libXcursor.la can''t be found. >> >> > > Anyone know whether GCC 4.1 has the same issues? If not, should we >> > > proceed to build QT with GCC 4.1, or is that not advisable? >> > >> > At least it shouldn''t take long to find out if that ICE applies. >> >> In point of fact it doesn''t fail there with gcc-4.1. Now how would the >> qt folks feel about us compiling with gcc-4.1? > > Only one way to find out. QT/KDE folks, your opinion please?Umm, should I have an opinion? If you want to change the compiler used in debian/rules, it''ll probably be a pain since the Qt build system tends to ignore variables like CC and CXX. Otherwise I don''t see why it would matter. -- Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.