Patrick, I've been able to compile 1.3 successfully with the latest boost 1.49 instead of 1.48. So it might be wise to mention this as a requirement for building syncevolution with gcc >=4.7. Thanks for you help!
Regards, Vlad. On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 18:38 +0200, Vladimir Elisseev wrote: > I have: > dev-libs/boost-1.48 > sys-devel/binutils-2.22.90 > both compiled with the old gcc (4.6.3). > > I don't thinks so, but maybe recompiling system packages with the new > gcc helps? > > Regards, > Vlad. > > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 18:13 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > 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? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > SyncEvolution mailing list > SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org > http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
