Thanks, Trenton.
Much appreciated and no problem. Frameworks it is then!
Best regards,
Martin.
Martin Dyde,
Milan Digital Audio LLC.
http://www.crumhorn-labs.com/
http://www.milandigitalaudio.com/
Trenton Schulz wrote:
On 2009-02-13 21:27:09 +0100, Martin Dyde <[email protected]> said:
Hello Trenton & co,
Background: some time last year, after you released the original
Qt/Cocoa alpha, I spoke to you about using -static -no-framework for Qt
Cocoa builds, since we'd prefer to build it that way (we don't need
plug-ins, it simplifies maintenance for our installer (which is
necessarily quite complex), and, our app does seem to start slightly
faster when Qt is linked statically). I must confess to knowing very
little about Objective-C/Cocoa programming, so please forgive me if
this question is just a result of ignorance on my part. (The new
macdeployqt util does indeed make the build process enormously easier
when using private frameworks -- many thanks for that -- and we'll go
for that approach if we do have to.)
Sorry for the delay in responding.
Yes, this was something we found out later. We add categories to some
Cocoa classes (namely NSApplication and NSWindow). This is mainly to
avoid sub-classing these classes. NSApplication especially since there
can only ever be one NSApplication object. We found that with static,
the categories are stripped. We didn't spend much time investigating
this since we never planned on supporting -static.
So, this is the reason for the crash I'm afraid and somewhat shuts tho
door on a -static with -cocoa. :-(
-- Trenton
_______________________________________________
Qt4-preview-feedback mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt4-preview-feedback
|
_______________________________________________
Qt4-preview-feedback mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt4-preview-feedback
