On 31 Oct 2011, at 23:24, ext Alexis Menard wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:08 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 30 Oct 2011, at 11:08, ext Alexis Menard wrote: >> >>> 2011/10/30 Thiago Macieira <[email protected]>: >>>> On Saturday, 29 de October de 2011 09:22:07 Chris Meyer wrote: >>>>> I would like to call attention to the following problem which is that >>>>> the Qt 4.8 build fails using the latest Mac OS 10.7 / Xcode 4.2 tools. >>> >>> For *your* use case. Normal and default cases work as the CI and other >>> reports say. >>> >>>>> >>>>> https://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTBUG-20619 >>>>> >>>>> Somehow the RC 1 candidates are being built... so there must be some >>>>> workaround. Is it possible to post the configure commands, >>>>> environment, and tools used to build the official 4.8 RC's? >>>>> >>>>> Also, I would hope that unilaterally closing a bug that affects a >>>>> primary platform (the Mac is still a primary platform, right?) with a >>>>> 'Won't Fix' and closing down all discussion on the issue is a trend >>>>> that won't continue. >>> >>> It's a primary platform but an exotic build setup. >>> >>>> >>>> You're over-reacting. That just means he (the assignee) will not fix the >>>> bug. >>>> If he had the power to close down all discussion, your email wouldn't exist >>>> and I wouldn't be typing this reply right now. >>>> >>>> Also do note that comments after the bug being closed are still received >>>> just >>>> as they were before. You can contribute more information to the report so >>>> that >>>> a solution can be found. >>>> >>>>> Zeno Albisser (the one who closed the bug) made some suggestions, but >>>>> since the bug is closed, there is no place for developers to post >>>>> information about what works and what doesn't work. My first thought >>>>> is to turn off debug libs; but I'm guessing other developers have done >>>>> it already so it would be nice if the bug were to remain open so that >>>>> we could all benefit from trial and error until a solution is found. >>>> >>>> Sure there is: the bug report. Comments are not disabled in closed bug >>>> reports. It just means Zeno is no longer looking for a solution. But if you >>>> provide one that works for everyone... >>> >>> Which I believe it is hard to find. I would have close the bug myself. >>> The command line option that the test case passes -arch x86 -arch >>> x86_64 is part of the so called "combination of command lines we can't >>> support". It perhaps worked before but with WebCore growing everyday >>> that was pure luck. >> >> Calling the abitlity to build 32+64bit fat binaries "pure luck" is a bit >> funny (and feels a bit offensive to me), since we always provided universal >> 32bit+64bit binary packages for Mac on qt.nokia.com/downloads, up to 4.7.4. > > Was not meant to be be offensive. You have to keep in mind that what > ships in 4.7 is at least a good year old WebKit and it is much bigger > now. > >> >> Also, universal binaries are quite common on Mac. Btw, even Safari comes in >> the form of a universal 32+64bit binary (at least on snow leopard) ;) >> >> Anyhow, it looks like the problem is not the combination of "-arch x86 -arch >> x86_64" but the combination of "-debug_and_release -arch x86 -arch x86_64". >> Which I think would be acceptable. (I just checked that "-release -arch x86 >> -arch x86_64" works for me.) > > Debug build of WebKit are always problematic as it requires a lot of > RAM to link for example (read at least 8GB), on Linux it may kill the > linker sometimes because it runs out of memory.
> Debug build of WebKit > are to use only if really needed. That reminds me: Wasn't there a time where debug was off by default for QtWebKit even when doing a debug build of Qt? Where's that gone? I suppose the main problem is that doing the perceived trivial thing "./configure -arch x86 -arch x86_64 && make" fails to build. Afair Qt didn't build webkit in debug by default, and you could enable debug for webkit with a separate configure switch. Default compile/link time and disk space/RAM consumption would be much reduced too, in that case. Btw, here's a visualization of *how* big webkit actually got within Qt (debug): http://imagebin.org/181891 ++ Eike >>> Splitting the build of WebCore into two pieces so >>> that ranlib could work and your test case work is just stupid because >>> it will add complexity for us to support/implement this, and we don't >>> want. In the other hand if it's that important for you, you can try >>> to have two builds and make a mixture of the library in one of the >>> framework if that's possible. >> >> >> >> -- >> Eike Ziller >> Principal Software Engineer >> >> Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks >> >> Nokia gate5 GmbH >> Firmensitz: Invalidenstr. 117, 10115 Berlin, Germany >> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin: HRB 106443 B >> Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer: DE 812 845 193 >> Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Halbherr, Karim Tähtivuori >> >> > > > > -- > Alexis Menard (darktears) > Software Engineer > INdT Recife Brazil -- Eike Ziller Principal Software Engineer Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks Nokia gate5 GmbH Firmensitz: Invalidenstr. 117, 10115 Berlin, Germany Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin: HRB 106443 B Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer: DE 812 845 193 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Halbherr, Karim Tähtivuori _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
