On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 17:50 +0200, Vladimir Elisseev wrote: > Thanks for the tip! This isn't boost, but new gcc (migrated from 4.6.3 > to 4.7.1). Since it's not syncevolution related, I'll try to investigate > what is the problem. Sorry for taking your time.
Not at all, thanks for reporting the problem. It may be relevant for other people compiling SyncEvolution. Note that it still could be a bug outside of gcc that is merely triggered by the compiler update. I have found (and fixed) bugs in SyncEvolution where the order of global instance construction was relevant. Those bugs showed up only after a change in the toolchain reordered global initialization. However, as I said in the previous mail, in this case I think SyncEvolution is doing the right thing (forcing construction of instances by embedding them in a function). What is your version of Boost and binutils? -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
