I find it a little annoying, but not that annoying. I have a few
checks to make on libsdl, since it did fail with my CFLAGS settings.
Perhaps it's not -fvisibility-inlines-hidden. As for KDE apps, didn't
someone mention earlier that these ebuilds now filter
-fvisibility-inlines-hidden? This
James Potts wrote:
-fvisibility-inlines-hidden not only breaks a number of kde apps afaik (it's
filtered now),
Again, probably -fvisibility=hidden. Many people have had success building KDE
with both flags enabled lately, so maybe that's something that could be
revisited when 4.1 goes
Harald van Dijk wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 09:39:28PM -0600, R Hill wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
R Hill wrote:
There's an endless number of CFLAGS that could be warned about, and just
as many situations where they're actually useful. Aside, I've yet to
hear of _anything_ that's broken
Patrick McLean posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on
Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:50:11 -0400:
For about a month now, we (amd64) have had some code in our
profile.bashrc that filters CFLAGS that are unrecognized by gcc, and
warnings the user about bad CFLAGS.
So far it has worked fairly
Patrick McLean wrote:
For about a month now, we (amd64) have had some code in our
profile.bashrc that filters CFLAGS that are unrecognized by gcc, and
warnings the user about bad CFLAGS.
The broken flags part is useful.
So far it has worked fairly well, and it has really cut down on the
R Hill wrote:
There's an endless number of CFLAGS that could be warned about, and just
as many situations where they're actually useful. Aside, I've yet to
hear of _anything_ that's broken because of -fvisibility-inlines-hidden.
(course someone will undoubtedly point one out now ;))
How
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
R Hill wrote:
There's an endless number of CFLAGS that could be warned about, and just
as many situations where they're actually useful. Aside, I've yet to
hear of _anything_ that's broken because of -fvisibility-inlines-hidden.
(course someone will undoubtedly point one
