Re: [Om-synth] Re: hey

[Dave Robillard]

On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:19 +0200, Lars Luthman wrote:
> 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.

Yeah well 4.1.1 != 4 :P

The cassert thing isn't because of compiler version (though what the
hell it IS because of is beyond me).

I'd fix it, but I'm way too lazy to deal with tarball crap right now.  I
should probably just nuke the version in CVS and replace it with that..

-DR-