[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: KDE 3.4 visibility support disabled
Marcus D. Hanwell posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu, 26 May 2005 12:05:36 +0100: > It seems that this has already been answered, but the KDE bug contains > some more of the detail. It looks like KDE 3.5/4 is the target for getting > proper visibility support. We haven't taken this decision lightly, and I > believe it is the best option we have for a stable desktop. > > KDE/QT 4 should have much improved visibility support, and I will be > testing them once it is workable and I have a little spare time Yes, I'm pretty much resigned to having to wait until kde4 for proper gcc4 support, but am /really/ looking forward to that! BTW, it's a bit off topic for this thread, but if there's someplace you could point me to with updated info on what's happening to arts and/or what's going to be replacing it in kde4, I know quite a number of folks that are interested. It seems I knew more than most when the topic came up in at least two groups (the amd64 list, and the local *ix group here at Cox), but my info is now severely outdated, since most of it is from last year's aKademy coverage and the like, when the only thing really settled was that 3.4 would continue to use ARTS and they would look at a replacement for 4.0. Now that 4.0 is getting closer, one would hope the kde4 sound question has been resolved rather more concretely than that, and as I said, I know a lot of folks (certainly myself included) that will be interested in learning more about whatever has been concluded. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: KDE 3.4 visibility support disabled
On 5/26/05, Caleb Tennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 26 May 2005 02:30 am, Duncan wrote: > > So the KDE problem... Is that what's causing all those virtual function > > but destructor isn't virtual type warnings whenever I compile a KDE ebuild > > with gcc4? > > No, that's just shoddy C++ coding that also needs to be fixed. Sorry to cut in like this, but I get tired of comments like this. While this specific case might very well represent "shoddy" coding, there are perfectly good reasons to have non-virtual destructors in classes designed to be base classes. One common case is when COM-style reference counting is used. In such a scenario leaf classes always implement a release() member function which deletes 'this' when the reference count goes to zero. With this configuration there is no need for a virtual destructor since destructor chaining always happens from a leaf class. I hope one day GCC's warning for this will be smart enough to at least not complain about non-public non-virtual destructors in classes that otherwise contain virtual member functions. Then the warning will be useful and perhaps indicate "shoddy C++ coding". :-) // Andreas -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: KDE 3.4 visibility support disabled
On Thursday 26 May 2005 02:30 am, Duncan wrote: > So the KDE problem... Is that what's causing all those virtual function > but destructor isn't virtual type warnings whenever I compile a KDE ebuild > with gcc4? No, that's just shoddy C++ coding that also needs to be fixed. Caleb -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: KDE 3.4 visibility support disabled
Dan Armak posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Thu, 26 May 2005 07:25:21 +0300: > That's going to kill it everywhere, gcc4 included. The way KDE uses hidden > visibility is itself broken - not gcc. Until that's fixed, we're disabling > visibility support in kde. (There was a separate bug in gcc itself which got > fixed, which may have confused some people...) Ahh... yes. Distinctive separate bug makes more sense, now. I had only known about the gcc bug. So the KDE problem... Is that what's causing all those virtual function but destructor isn't virtual type warnings whenever I compile a KDE ebuild with gcc4? -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
