On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:31:26PM +0200, Andreas Pakulat wrote: > On 20.Mai 2003 - 20:37:38, Dave Lister wrote: > > Hi there, I've just subscribed to this list - feel free to spank me if > > I'm too BFUish ;) > > > > I've installed new KDE 3.1.2 core libraries (from kde.org) on my SARGE. > > It was a bit tricky as KDE's Arts is "only" 1.1.2-0 and Sarge's is > > 1.1.2-1. I've solved this manully and installed WOODY's libvorbis0 to > > allow KDE's Arts slip in without further dependency problems. So far so > > good. Now, I have new KDE's Arts, core and QT 3.1.2 libraries and > > devel headers. > > > > I'm using new gcc 3.2.3-0pre9, _not_ Woody's 2.9x, which was used to > > compile all KDE's binary packages. Everyting seems to work all right, > > new KDE apps and even my compiled-before-upgrade /usr/local/bin QT apps. > > > > The problem is that any qt-based app I try to _compile_ now fails to get > > linked, because of "undefined references", apparently the ones to > > exports in libqt-mt. > > > > My guess is that gcc 3.2 is somehow "binary incompatible" with older > > 2.9x and thus, linker fails to resolve all symbols in the 2.9x-compiled > > libqt-mt.so.3.1.2. > > > > First question: > > Is it possible? If not, what could be the reason? > > Is what possible? To compile your QT apps against a library built with > 2.9x? No, the so called ABI of 2.95, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 are all incompatible > to each other. The KDE and also QT probably used 2.95 to compile so this > works.
I meant if it's possible that gcc 2.95 and 3.2 would be "somehow binary incompatible" - they are, because of ABI, as you said. That's what I wanted to know. Thanx.7 > > Second question: Is there any other way than downgrading gcc back to > > Woody's 2.9x or compiling the whole QT from sources (as I did in the > > days of unstable 3.1)? > > You don't have to downgrade, export CC=gcc-2.95 and CXX=gcc-2.95, that > should do. Oh and don't forget to do an apt-get install gcc-2.95, it > is also available in sarge :) Only the gcc package changes according > to the transition to gcc-3.2 Ok, I'll do it this way. You were most helpful; thank you, Andreas. regards, Dave
