On 07/01/14 22:34, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Alex Merry wrote: > >> On 07/01/14 18:00, Stephen Kelly wrote: >>> Alex Merry wrote: >>> >>>> Hrm. After some investigation: I'm not entirely sure. The simplest >>>> answer is "that's what qmake does" >>> >>> Please tell me you noticed that I asked about -U, not -D ... >> >> Yes. qmake actually doesn't use -U directly; > > Right. So the -U, at least, is not "what qmake does".
No, but the effect should be the same. >> I'm not certain what the "right" thing to do here is. Arguably, we >> should always set -DQT_NO_EXCEPTIONS (at least for frameworks) so that >> we can be sure they build when Qt has exceptions disabled. > > Are you sure? No. >> Either way, I'm really not convinced qmake does the right thing, as I >> think QT_NO_EXCEPTIONS should really be defined if and only if the Qt >> library itself was compiled with exceptions disabled. > > That information can be conveyed from the Qt CMake config files if needed, > or an installed header file if that's how the Qt list wants to do it. No > problem. I'm inclined to say we should not touch QT_NO_EXCEPTIONS at all (which makes it undefined by default except on GCC with -fno-exceptions, where I believe it should get set in qglobal.h), and maybe push for a discussion in the Qt Project about whether it should be set to match how Qt was built (in qmake and Qt5CoreConfig.cmake, or in an installed header file). Alex _______________________________________________ Kde-buildsystem mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
