incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: build svtools with debug
Date Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:20:01 GMT
On 9/26/12 4:50 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> ________________________________
>> From: Rob Weir <>
> ...
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
>>>> From: Armin Le Grand
>>> ...
>>>> Hi List,
>>>> with current trunk I cannot build svtools with debug, e.g.
>>>> cd svtools
>>>> make clean
>>>> make clean debug=t
>>>> make -sr -j8 debug=t
>>>> -> Lots of unresolved externals from stl. Yes, I'm using stlport, and
I'm on windows.
>>>> I tried to also build stlport with debug and delivered it, but does not help.
>>>> Can someone help...?
>>> I can't really help but ... I think we started getting all those complains
>>> from STLport stuff after I updated boost (?!).
>> Would it make sense now to revert that commit and work on a branch to
>> resolve remaining issues.  It is very bad for the build to be broken
>> for this long.
> It's not broken, just fragile. The issues so far only happen in Windows with debugging.
> I am afraid that if we revert the boost update we will never get the issues fixed and
> perhaps this is the motivation we need to resolve the stlport situation.

I don't really share your view here and having Windows not buildable
with debug is a clear no go for me.
You seems to be interested in updating the boost library (which is good)
but not interested to solve the upcoming problems in a way that are
acceptable for all others who concentrate on other important stuff.

This can't really work and I think we have to find a general agreement
on how we want work together on the code.

I can think of
- make changes and when a build bot breaks and the problem can't be
fixed easily, revert the fix
- build bots on our 4 official platforms have to work always -> well
something where we have to work on to reach the state that we had in the
past + a Mac build bot
- more difficult fixes or bigger changes should be made on branches
- ...

> The stlport situation is basically that we are using 3 outdated versions and it
> doesn't support clang.

In general I agree but based on the fact that we have this problems now
I am in favor of doing the boost upgrade on a branch together with the
stlport elimination and using the compiler stl.


View raw message