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 th
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 shodd
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@g
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
