Just as mysteriously as it started, it's gone... RHEL 4 w/ boost 1.35 is now building clean.
FYI... -Steve > Oh, well, I guess we need look no further. (farther?) > Sorry, I missed that. When I was porting to RHEL4, boost was the > source of 99.94% of the trouble. That's the difference. > > > > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 13:55 -0500, Steve Huston wrote: > > Hi Mick, > > > > I did see your later email re my finding Broker.cpp triggered the > > problem. > > > > The most obvious diff btw our RHEL 4 systems is probably that I have > > boost 1.35 and I'm guessing you have 1.32 or so. Let me > know if you'd > > like to compare further. > > > > -Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: michael goulish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 1:41 PM > > > To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: Linking problems on RHEL 4 starting between > > > Friday and Monday > > > > > > > > > Steve -- > > > > > > I build frequently on RHEL4, so I thought I would try this out. > > > This morning I checked out clean trees for both 713904 and > > > 718158, and I > > > got normal builds on both. > > > > > > So -- I don't know how helpful that is -- but I think there > > > must be some > > > other change on your system that is the culprit. I don't suppose > > you > > > have access to a different RHEL4 box that you could try it on? > > > > > > Or -- I'd be happy to compare notes between your RHEL4 system > > > and mine, > > > if you like. > > > > > > ------------------------------ Mick . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 17:23 -0500, Steve Huston wrote: > > > > Hi Gordon, > > > > > > > > Yes, it is puzzling... FYI, it fails the same way on a clean svn > > > > checkout. > > > > Not sure what to make of it... > > > > > > > > -Steve > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Gordon Sim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:25 AM > > > > > To: qpid-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Re: Linking problems on RHEL 4 starting between > > > > > Friday and Monday > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve Huston wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I run a daily Qpid trunk build on RHEL 4 and > sometime between > > > > Friday > > > > > > Nov 14 (svn rev 713904) and Monday Nov 18 (svn rev 718158) > > > > something > > > > > > changed which causes the following at link time: > > > > > > > > > > > > /usr/bin/ld: `.L10258' referenced in section > > > > > > `.gnu.linkonce.r._ZNSt6vectorIN4qpid3UrlESaIS1_EED1Ev' of > > > > > > qpid/broker/.libs/ConnectionHandler.o: defined in discarded > > > > section > > > > > > `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNSt6vectorIN4qpid3UrlESaIS1_EED1Ev' of > > > > > > qpid/broker/.libs/ConnectionHandler.o > > > > > > > > > > > > /usr/bin/ld: `.L10513' referenced in section > > > > > > `.gnu.linkonce.r._ZNSt6vectorIN4qpid3UrlESaIS1_EED1Ev' of > > > > > > qpid/broker/.libs/ConnectionHandler.o: defined in discarded > > > > section > > > > > > `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNSt6vectorIN4qpid3UrlESaIS1_EED1Ev' of > > > > > > qpid/broker/.libs/ConnectionHandler.o > > > > > > > > > > > > /usr/bin/ld: `.L9874' referenced in section > > > > > > `.gnu.linkonce.r._ZNSt6vectorIN4qpid3UrlESaIS1_EED1Ev' of > > > > > > qpid/broker/.libs/ConnectionHandler.o: defined in discarded > > > > section > > > > > > `.gnu.linkonce.t._ZNSt6vectorIN4qpid3UrlESaIS1_EED1Ev' of > > > > > > qpid/broker/.libs/ConnectionHandler.o > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The second message above repeats many times. The resulting > > > > > lib appears > > > > > > to run, but the voluminous warnings are a bit > > > disconcerting. Does > > > > > > anyone recall changing something in that area that > may explain > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -Steve > > > > > > > > > > > Odd; I can't see anything in the diff between those > two revision > > > > that > > > > > looks like it might be the culprit. > > > > > > > > > > Last change to ConnectionHandler was r713739 (last Thursday, > > > > > 13th). Url > > > > > hasn't changed this month. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see the same errors on a clean build (or is this from > > > > > a clean build)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
