On segunda-feira, 3 de dezembro de 2012 15.09.15, Stephen Kelly wrote: > On Monday, December 03, 2012 12:02:14 Francisco Lopes da Silva wrote: > > > Wow, I missed that in my sample, now I see. Indeed it looks like a > > > compiler bug indeed. I'll report to LLVM Bug List. > > > > > > > > Reported to http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14486. > > Is there a workaround for this issue?
Yes, it's possible to work around it if clang is released with this bug.
qbasicatomic.h already has this as a workaround for a similar bug in clang:
# if defined(Q_CC_CLANG) && ((((__clang_major__ * 100) + __clang_minor__) <
302) \
|| defined(__apple_build_version__) \
)
/* Do not define QT_BASIC_ATOMIC_HAS_CONSTRUCTORS for "stock" clang before
version 3.2.
Apple's version has different (higher!) version numbers, so disable it
for all of them for now.
(The only way to distinguish between them seems to be a check for
__apple_build_version__ .)
For details about the bug: see
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12670
*/
# else
# define QT_BASIC_ATOMIC_HAS_CONSTRUCTORS
# endif
We need to change the 3.2 / 302 to 3.4 / 304.
Also, can someone check if 3.2 did compile this correctly? If so, this is a
regression in 3.3 and would qualify even more strongly for release blocker.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
