The bug mentioned is referring to a gcc bug in 4.2.x. The bugtrackerlink claims it is fixed in 4.3.x Do we need to keep these workarounds? Maybe we can drop this all together. Would raise maintainability in general. Who uses 4.2.x compilers?
Am 29. November 2017 19:16:29 MEZ schrieb Don Lewis <truck...@apache.org>: >On 29 Nov, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> I'm just concerned about the CXXFLAGS interaction >> >> The proposed patch breaks how I expect many people >> are building AOO and it's a regression that, unless >> we are super clear about it, would bite a lot of >> people. > >How many people set CXXFLAGS in the environment? > >Another way to do this is to change the >gb_LinkTarget_set_*_optimization >functions to override CXXFLAGS, etc. instead of gb_COMPILEROPTFLAGS. >That would basically return us to the status quo where the usual way of >doing per-target overrides to this point has been: > ># Work around bug in gcc 4.2 / 4.3, see ># http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35182 >ifeq ($(COM),GCC) >$(eval $(call gb_Library_add_cxxobjects,sc,\ > sc/source/ui/unoobj/chart2uno \ > , $(gb_COMPILERNOOPTFLAGS) $(gb_LinkTarget_EXCEPTIONFLAGS) \ >)) >else >$(eval $(call gb_Library_add_exception_objects,sc,\ > sc/source/ui/unoobj/chart2uno \ >)) >endif > >which manages to lose the debug flags. > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
