On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 03:47:56PM -0400, Andre Smagin wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2017 20:53:12 +0200
> Landry Breuil <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Better with an update that actually compiles. works here, but doesnt
> > directly fix my own issue... strange. Worked after forcing an update of
> > the problematic dir via gmpc, and a rescan.
> > 
> > Either way, we should go for the update if there are no regressions.
> > David ?
> 
> Does the update fix the database issue for you? It does not seem to
> have any effect here, not without the #define gcc_pure bit.
> (0.20.8 was the first thing I checked yesterday, hoping that a simple
> update would be enough :)
> 
> terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::system_error'
>   what():  Failed to access /storage/music/test: No such file or directory
> 
> May 23 15:18 : exception: Failed to access /storage/music/dts/test: No such 
> file or directory

I'm not sure we were seeing the same issue.. in the end, going into the
database in gmpc and updating the problematic dir fixed the issue. And i
wasnt seeing a program termination.


> When I add the Compiler.h patch to 0.20.8, it starts working,
> so perhaps that commit you mentioned was not enough.

Then that should be discussed with upstream..

> Also, you have
> + static
> +-#if GCC_OLDER_THAN(5,0)
> ++#if GCC_OLDER_THAN(5,0) || defined(__clang__)
> + /* gcc 4.x has no "constexpr" for std::max() */
> + const
> 
> but with
> 
> #define GCC_OLDER_THAN(major, minor) \
>       (GCC_VERSION > 0 && CLANG_VERSION == 0 && \
>        GCC_VERSION < GCC_MAKE_VERSION(major, minor, 0))
> 
> we end up with "if not clang or if clang", which works for us,
> but does not feel right. I got a bit lost in all the compiler checks
> defined in Compiler.h, not sure what the right way is though.
> (The logic seems reversed to begin with and clang 4 is supposed
> to support constexpr for std::max() I think.)
> 
> But this compiler/library/c++ maze is way above my abilities, sorry.

Ditto - now it works, that's all i was looking for. The patch might of
course be wrong, that was just to make it build so that i could test it.

Reply via email to