Re: [Om-synth] Re: hey

[Lars Luthman]

On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 09:02 +0200, Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
> > > when will om be gcc-4 compliant?
> > > my system is built entirely with gcc4 and I cannot compile om.
> > >
> > > building with gcc3 causes lib-versioning errors
> > > (/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/libstdc++.so.6: version
> > > `GLIBCXX_3.4.4' not found) so I am forced to use gcc4 to compile
> > >
> > > it is strange because it is the only package that doesn't build with
> > > gcc4.... btw, any help is much appreciated!
> > >
> > > ciao
> > > Federico
> > >
> >
> >
> > always builds fine with gcc 4 for me.
> 
> Works fine for me too with gcc 4.1. Frederico, your system config
> might have a problem...

That tarball did _not_ work for me with 4.1.1, because a function had
extra qualifications (Classname::function when it was defined inside the
class) which GCC 4.1.1 does not allow, and because an #include <cassert>
was missing in a file that used assert(). I would be surprised if you
got it to build with GCC 4.1.1.

-- 
Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part