On Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:07:42 PM CET Boudhayan Gupta wrote: > On 10 December 2015 at 12:32, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote: > > yes, that's the annoying one which is lots of work and lots of possible > > regressions. I'm not sure whether I'm willing to do that work which I > > consider a useless exercise. > > In my opinion this discussion is an useless exercise, because: > > Well it doesn't need to be a global bump of compiler requirements. But we > > could consider different compiler requirements for frameworks which are > > non- portable. KWayland will never be built on Windows neither on OSX. So > > any compiler restrictions on it just shouldn't matter. > > Exactly. Anything that's Wayland related is supposed to be on the > bleeding edge right now. Setting compiler restrictions on this > particular framework will serve only to (apologies for my language, > but there really is not a more apt term for this) cockblock KWayland > development. Developing new technologies from scratch is hard; being > unable to use easier constructs for solving problems not only makes > your job harder but frustrates you more (it's there, why can't I use > this?) > > I may be wrong, but I'm guessing Wayland came quite a while after > gcc-4.5 did, and that they use features that require gcc>4.5.
I rather doubt that this is actually the case. Wayland is a c-library and we
need to explicitly set in KWayland:
set(CMAKE_C_FLAGS "${CMAKE_C_FLAGS} -std=gnu90")
in order to compile generated Wayland protocols.
Cheers
Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
