[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: PPC issue w.r.t. libartsc (and sometimes kcontrol modules)
From:       ian reinhart geiser <geiseri () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2002-02-28 11:33:18
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Actually this fixes A GREAT MANY things on the PPC.  Ever wonder why some 
python, perl and php modules never worked?  It turns out some of them suffer 
from this too.  At least it fixes my problems I have been haveing with PyQT, 
I have to test the python bindings.  I should check to see if Mandrake and 
SuSE are doing something similar to this because some of there packages work 
but the stuff I build by hand never seems to work right... 

I think KOffice's python stuff never worked on the PPC because of this too, I 
am testing this.  I would be very impressed if this fixed a great number of 
very hard to find bugs in KDE.

Thanks
	-ian reinhart geiser

On Wednesday 27 February 2002 02:49 pm, Kevin Puetz wrote about Re: PPC issue 
w.r.t. libartsc (and sometimes kcontrol modules):
> >Kevin did you talk to Franzo about this one?  This could also be an issue
> >with our gcc.  I have not tried the newer GCC versions yet but I can vouch
> >that there are some other issues too, (the -fsigned-char) one shows up in
> > a few places, during the build process, but they never have caused a bug
> > that I am aware of so I have not looked any deeper into them.
>
> I did once, long ago. He said it was going to be changed in gcc, since it
> seemed to pop up every now and again. However, afaict it was never changed
> for 2.95.x, which is why I'm dragging it back out for us to fix right
> before 3. I thought it had been worked around from gcc a long time ago, but
> he must just have never gotten around to it, since someone just re-reported
> it to bugs.debian.org. I checked and it's still around :-).
>
> In any case, whether PPC gcc ever changes or not, the bug _is_ a general
> problem, and this is a correct fix. Even if PPC seems to be the only
> platform to do so, I see no reason why it's OK to use sharedlibs, OK to use
> static libs, OK to use object files by full path, and not OK to use static
> archives by full path in specifying what needs to be linked to make up a
> platform's C runtime. We may as well fix it right, recognize all four ways;
> afaik it makes sense to treat static archives the same as if each .o in
> them was listed seperately, so this is what I did. That guarentees we get
> what we need, iinstead of hoping we pick up the core symbols
> (__pure_virtual and the like) we need by accident from other libs (which
> usually works out, since qt drags in nearly everything).
>
> >Also do you know if this breaks the older gcc on the PPC?  I have to wait
> >until this evening to test the patch but I will have to check it out on my
> >powerbook with SuSE 7.3 on it.
>
> Fixes it actually. One app that usually exhibits this problem is trying to
> use xmmsarts, if you want something to try. Since it's linked to so little
> else, it's got good odds to come up missing symbols (though it fails
> silently unless you go in and edit it to print the message from ltdlopen).
> SuSE might very well have a gcc that doesn't show it though, if Franz left
> the changes in his big bundle but never got it pushed upstream with the
> rest of his work.
>
> If ppc ever does change to -lgcc (and I presume it probably will in gcc3,
> but who knows), this fix will be irrelevant, but it will still be correct
> and shouldn't break anyone. It might even fix something for other arches,
> if anyone else uses static archives in their C runtime (or starts doing so)
> and has just never identified why libartsc doesn't work on arch XYZ :-).
>
> >Thanks

- -- 
:-- Ian Reinhart Geiser --:
GPG Key: D6A6 7E16 13A9 B5A7 9E18 D1A7 3F2E B64D 19BC 76F8
===========================================================
===========================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8fhV+Py62TRm8dvgRAmqdAJ962sOJV6chqV2+bWKWj2BHulzHQwCfUUxm
/aD1usknPrwCY6Qw1EcZPyk=
=1IrJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]