Just to respond to this: >And are you sure it is the same on other platforms like say when compiling for arm?
My knowledge of the problem is: 1) It affects linux mint 16, when I installed gcc 4.6 on my machine when it originally happened, just to see it for myself 2) It affects whatever vm system travis uses 3) It affects what system anonymissimus uses, which I believe is windows? I don't know if it affects arm but it seems that gcc 4.7 is also capable to compile for arm? Part of the reason I emailed the list was to check if anyone is currently building with gcc 4.6 successfully and needs to continue doing so -- if I remember correctly, you are currently using gcc 4.8, Ivanovic? Best Regards, Chris Beck On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:33 PM, chris beck <beck...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think a "comment" in the INSTALL file is going to be particularly > effective, most people who want to build the project are, quite reasonably, > going to go to the apparently well-written and maintained instructions on > the wiki and follow them step by step. > > My main concern is, again, > > > If we upgrade the compiler requirements in the scons / cmake recipes, > then at least it will save any user or developer an hours worth of > compiling which leads inevitably to a crash. > > What is the point of having a minimum compiler version at all for scons / > cmake if its not accurate? If we would rather say "you should have read the > install file" then maybe we should remove the compiler version check > completely, since it only gives the user a false indication that they have > the right compiler version (and that gcc 4.6 might be working on someone > else's machine, as anonymissimus originally thought.) > > The fact is you cannot apparently build the wesnoth target with gcc <= > 4.6, and that is most likely a "upstream / wont fix", so unless we intend > to fix that somehow, isn't it a bug in the scons / cmake recipes if we > permit an attempt to build now that we know this? > > > "one or more versions of the gcc 4.6 series (and only that series) are > incompatible" > > I also don't see any reason to assume this, did you try compiling with > some < 4.5 version? It seems more reasonable to assume that whatever bug it > is exists on all versions up to and including 4.6.x, if we have no more > information. > > Best Regards, > Chris Beck > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Nils Kneuper <crazy-ivano...@gmx.net> > wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Am 21.07.2014 23:26, schrieb chris beck: >> >> I'd rather not see the absolute minimum version requirement raised >> since >> >> we still need to build wesnothd on a machine with gcc 3.4.6 and I'd >> >> prefer if I did not have to build my own gcc there. >> > >> > Maybe we should have separate version requirements for the wesnoth vs >> the >> > wesnothd and campaignd compilation targets? >> >> And are you sure it is the same on other platforms like say when >> compiling for >> arm? >> >> Just some short comment that building with GCC 4.6.x on amd64/x86 might be >> broken should be enough, right? >> >> Cheers, >> Nils Kneuper aka Ivanovic >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v2 >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAlPNisIACgkQfFda9thizwVmBACbBJ/0AYYw9DdTvvUGYgXAXvq6 >> VQ8An2ZWjCZXFuhVH3Hvy1llJXXPE6+A >> =RBgu >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wesnoth-dev mailing list >> Wesnoth-dev@gna.org >> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev >> > >
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
