| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pluby
The Architect
Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 11949
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jjmckenzie51
The Anomaly
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
| pluby wrote: | Ed,
Do you think it would be easier to use gcc4 with the OOo 2.0 codebase? If so, I can shuffle the development priorities to put the OOo 2.0 upgrade immediately after the Java 1.4 work is done. |
Patrick:
Looks like Florian is really putting forth some effort to get OOo 1.9_m128 to compile under Apple's GCC4. There are about fifteen IZs right now for his and Eric B's work. Not that someone should not be working on 1.1.4/1.1.5.
James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
For the most part those 2.0 patches may not be relevant to the 1.1.4 gcc4 stuff as a number of them are simply things that need to get moved in from 2.0 or its branches. The idlc crash is disconcerting, however...the previous one revealed a double-free in the locale stuff, so this one may be just as obscure and also affect 2.0, even if it hasn't manifested itself during its build process yet.
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
The idlc crashes were in the store module...apparently satiating the compiler with the template typenames wasn't sufficient for OStoreHandle. I tracked down a modification Dan had made for gcc 3.4 bug workarounds in store that solved the segfault.
The compile trudges on...
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
Well, cppu requires patching for similar template namespace garbage, and apparently the really wacky templates in cppumaker are completely broken too. Its complaining about portions where it seems that the various base classes are taking addresses of overloaded inline functions. Blech.
This whole implementation has changed in 2.0 apparently, but now OOo CVS is littered with license change diffs with the removal of SISSL that I can no longer see straight. Must go to bed.
<rant>
Ever since I started in 2001 the whole crazy way OOo uses templates has been nothing but trouble and has broken with nearly every single little compiler revision, even the minor ones. That's what you get for using esoteric parts of a language that aren't supported by all compilers or have changing definitions. But really...taking addresses of inlined functions...that are themselves template functions...I wonder who in the heck ever thought this was a good idea since the result could change depending on the *compiler options* passed to the compiler. This really is some crackpot C++.
</rant>
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
OK, tracked this one down. It is solved by the relevant changes to use static_type in:
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=29352
Note that this requires changes in codemaker as well as cppuhelper. The OOo build system is also not smart enough to trigger regeneration of headers and interfaces from idl based upon newer builds of the codemaker tools, so any changes to the underlying build tools themselves require manual cleaning out of any modules that use them as part of the build process to force recompilation.
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
Next module: comphelper. More stupid template namespace scoping. Damn you C++ standards compliance!!
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
Next module: configmgr.
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
ucbhelper
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
idl
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
bridges
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
psprint
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
stoc
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
ucb
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjmckenzie51
The Anomaly
Joined: Apr 01, 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Southeastern Arizona
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
Ed:
Are you pushing these back to HEAD or are you working in another location?
James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
