On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 10:03:38PM +0100, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 01:47:26PM -0500, Douglas R. Reno via blfs-dev wrote:
> >
> > On 8/18/20 1:24 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
> > > /usr/include/c++/10.2.0/bits/atomic_base.h:152:12: note: declaration of
> > > 'struct std::atomic<double>'
> > > 152 | struct atomic;
> > > | ^~~~~~
> > > make[2]: *** [src/CMakeFiles/inkscape_base.dir/build.make:5120:
> > > src/CMakeFiles/inkscape_base.dir/ui/tool/node.cpp.o] Error 1
> > >
> > > Note the 'Cached relative error' comment.
> > >
> > > After some random searches without any relevant results, I
> > > eventually discovered that boost has a concept of a 'relative
> > > error'.
> > >
> > > But I'm guessing this might be the first time anybody has tried to
> > > build inkscape with boost-1.74.0. No idea how to fix it.
> > >
> > > ĸen
> >
> > Hi Ken,
> >
> >
> > I have a fix in my sandbox right now rendering
> >
> >
> > You'll want to add "#include <atomic>" either above or below "#include
> > <iostream>". I've read conflicting reports about this regarding Boost,
> > glibc, and gcc. I was able to build it with Poppler before freeze, so I know
> > it's not that. I attributed it to glibc in my sandbox. This is the sed I
> > entered:
> >
> > sed -i '/#include <iostream>/a #include <atomic>' src/ui/tool/node.cpp
> >
> > - Doug
> >
> >
> Thanks!
>
> I couldn't find any directly relevant results, I think gcc had not
> changed since my last build, so from the odd comment in the message
> I guessed boost.
>
> Will give it a try when I'm back at the machine.
Works nicely (as in builds and runs, but I'm too inexpert to get it
to do what I really would like to use it for ;-). Thanks again.
--
Juliet's version of cleanliness was next to godliness, which was to
say it was erratic, past all understanding and was seldom seen.
-- Unseen Academicals
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
