Jon Ciesla <limburg...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> Jon Ciesla <limburg...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Lilypond 2.19.36/7 fails to build with GCC6 using the c++14 std, which is >> > the new default for GCC6, as present in Fedora 24+. Attached is a patch >> > allowing Lilpond 2.19.37 to build. Please review and adopt if >> applicable. >> > If there are better corrections than what I've done here, please let me >> > know and I'll update our patch, at least until a future release builds >> > unpatched. >> >> The proposed changes are pretty much unilaterally horrible. >> >> // code maintenance while being harder to understand and quite >> // trickier in its failure symptoms when things go wrong. So we >> // just use a static zero as "not here" indication. >> - static const int type_p_name_ = 0; >> + static const int type_p_name_ = NULL; >> >> Why would a const int be set to NULL, a pointer constant? >> >> And since that apparently doesn't even work, you afterwards apply >> reinterpret_casts (pretty much the worst kind of cast) on everything. >> >> What kind of error message are you getting for the original code? > > Original error messages here, i build.log: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307746 > > This is an additional reference: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html > > Alternative suggestions are more than welcome.
Compile as C++11. It's quite ridiculous how the C++ standard committee creates a completely new puzzle game for making templates work every single time. You are probably not happier if I cite all the passages making the current code valid C++11, and I don't have access to the C++14 standard. And it's bloody ridiculous anyway that GCC 5 does not yet permit using C++11 (like std::nullptr_t) while GCC 6 does no longer permit using C++11 (like using an integral 0 constant as null pointer constant). I actually suspect GCC to be wrong here but without access to a C++14 standard, it's guesswork at best. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation to be able to cater for _three_ different standards of C++ at the same time with non-trivial template code when the standard committee goes out of its way to make them differ in significant details significantly. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
