Phil Holmes <m...@philholmes.net> writes:

> phil@Ubuntu:~/lilypond-git$ rm -rf build
> phil@Ubuntu:~/lilypond-git$ sh autogen.sh --noconfigure &> dev\null
> phil@Ubuntu:~/lilypond-git$ mkdir -p build
> phil@Ubuntu:~/lilypond-git$ cd build
> phil@Ubuntu:~/lilypond-git/build$ ../configure &> dev\null
> phil@Ubuntu:~/lilypond-git/build$ make -s -j9 &> ~/MakeFail220515.txt
>
> On a clean build directory as above, current master fails to compile as 
> follows:
>
> /lilypond-git/lily/include/listener.hh: In static member function 
> 'static void Listener::smob_proc_init(scm_t_bits)':
> /lilypond-git/lily/include/listener.hh:104: error: insufficient 
> contextual information to determine type
> /lilypond-git/lily/include/listener.hh: In static member function 
> 'static void Callback_wrapper::smob_proc_init(scm_t_bits)':
> /lilypond-git/lily/include/listener.hh:182: error: insufficient
>  contextual information to determine type
>
> I can supply the full output of make if required, this is just an extract.
>
> With the same commands on HEAD~2, the compile completes successfully.

Clearly issue 4400, and the lines looking like

  LY_DECLARE_SMOB_PROC (&Listener::listen, 1, 0, 0)

and

  LY_DECLARE_SMOB_PROC (&Callback_wrapper::call, 2, 0, 0)


The respective definition is

#define LY_DECLARE_SMOB_PROC(PMF, REQ, OPT, VAR)                        \
  static void smob_proc_init (scm_t_bits smob_tag)                      \
  {                                                                     \
    scm_set_smob_apply (smob_tag,                                       \
                        (scm_t_subr)smob_trampoline<PMF>,               \
                        REQ, OPT, VAR);                                 \
  }


Now obviously Patchy was fine with that change, so updating g++ to the
version used by Patchy should do the trick here.  However, this might
not be an option for all self-compilers.

Does it help if you move the LY_DECLARE_SMOB_PROC lines in
lily/include/listener.hh which currently are right above the
corresponding function definitions to below the corresponding function
definitions?

-- 
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Reply via email to