From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rvr5q-0001lA-Aq for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:04:54 +0100 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2012 05:56:47 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,351,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="108669662" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.199]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2012 05:56:46 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:56:44 +0000 Message-ID: <1440799.NqLiKZanR0@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.8.0 (Linux/3.0.0-15-generic-pae; KDE/4.8.0; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <6dd3f664169b2ffd249da4e86f5f16b8c4316c99.1328809777.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] qt4: fix compile error in Qt 4.8.0 with gcc 4.6 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:04:54 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:19:22 Khem Raj wrote: > since there is a namespace conflict that should be fixed IMO removing > Wrror is not quite the right thing to do here IMO. So removing -Werror is somewhat heavy-handed, yes; perhaps we can simply add -Wno-error=c++0x-compat and mark this patch as inappropriate for upstreaming instead? > Its a workaround but probably upstream wont > accept it. So change nullptr here to something like qt_nullptr in source > tree What the code is attempting to do is provide its own "nullptr" if it isn't being provided as part of the language: ------------------------------ #if __has_feature(cxx_nullptr) || (GCC_VERSION_AT_LEAST(4, 6, 0) && defined(__GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__)) || (defined(_MSC_VER) && _MSC_VER >= 1600 && !COMPILER(INTEL)) #define HAVE_NULLPTR 1 #else namespace std { class nullptr_t { }; } extern std::nullptr_t nullptr; #endif ------------------------------ gcc 4.6 is preempting this and complaining about the use of the identifier. I don't think renaming it is going to be acceptable upstream either. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre