On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 05:57:38PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 08.05.2015 16:53, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> > In any case:
> >
> > if test "$cross_compiling" != "yes"; then
> > libo_CHECK_SYSTEM_MODULE([cppunit],[CPPUNIT],[cppunit >= 1.12.0])
> > fi
> >
> > in configure.ac where cppunit is di
On 08.05.2015 16:53, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:55:35PM +0200, Richard Cochran
> wrote:
>> Ok, it is somehow related to the cross compile configuration. The
>> 'make cppunit.all' works as expected with a native build.
>
> Isn't the very point of cross-compilation that the
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:56:31AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> Thanks, that is very useful to know.
Actually, that target fails in the same way as 'build' does:
In file included from
/mnt/storage/git/libreoffice/sal/cppunittester/cppunittester.cxx:28:0:
/mnt/storage/git/libreoffice/include/c
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 06:41:06AM +0200, Andras Timar wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Richard Cochran
> wrote:
>
> > I specifically did 'make build' in order to avoid the tests, but the
> > build system compiles the tests anyhow.
>
> The 'build' target includes tests. Try the 'build-no
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> I specifically did 'make build' in order to avoid the tests, but the
> build system compiles the tests anyhow.
The 'build' target includes tests. Try the 'build-nocheck' target.
Regards,
Andras
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 06:59:47PM +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> I think you missed the meaning of "host" in GNU autoconf terminology;) (np,
> I confuse those constantly myself, too, unless I am ver careful)
Yes, the gnu terminology is confusing to me, too.
But no, this time I am not confused! B
> > > x86_64
> >
> > Why?!
>
> Well, the customer is always right, you know. ;^)
>
>
I think you missed the meaning of "host" in GNU autoconf terminology;) (np,
I confuse those constantly myself, too, unless I am ver careful)
--tml
___
LibreOffice mailin
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 02:31:16PM +0200, David Tardon wrote:
> > At the very least, you would need to be consistent about passing
> > --host and --build to the externals:
>
> Cross-compilation support for the bundled projects was added to these
> that needed to be cross-compiled. Doing it for all
Hi,
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 11:27:49AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:07:19PM +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > Well, we have tinderbox slaves that cross-compile for Android and iOS
> > constantly, so it can't be totally broken.
>
> Those only work because the makefiles
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:07:19PM +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Well, we have tinderbox slaves that cross-compile for Android and iOS
> constantly, so it can't be totally broken.
Those only work because the makefiles are full of special hacks for
those two targets. For example:
find external -
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 07:07:01PM +0200, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> What's your cross-compilation target?
x86_64
> http://tinderbox.libreoffice.org/MASTER/status.html says that the
> Android and iOS cross-compilation targets work fine (those columns are
> green), as far as I see.
That doesn't surpri
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 05:09:54PM +0200, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> Yes, *I* would say so, but the LO build thinks otherwise!
>
> I specifically did 'make build' in order to avoid the tests, but the
> build system compiles the tests anyhow. There are LOTS of other ways
> in which cross compile i
> There are LOTS of other ways
> in which cross compile is broken.
Well, we have tinderbox slaves that cross-compile for Android and iOS
constantly, so it can't be totally broken.
So you need to be more specific. Also whether something is considered
"broken" or not depends somewhat on whether it
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 04:53:49PM +0200, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:55:35PM +0200, Richard Cochran
> wrote:
> > Ok, it is somehow related to the cross compile configuration. The
> > 'make cppunit.all' works as expected with a native build.
>
> Isn't the very point of cros
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:55:35PM +0200, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> Ok, it is somehow related to the cross compile configuration. The
> 'make cppunit.all' works as expected with a native build.
Isn't the very point of cross-compilation that the resulting binary is
not something you can run? If s
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:31:39PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> I should probably add that I am trying to cross compile LO (I know, I
> know, don't ask why), and it is clear that building cross is not fully
> implemented, but in this case I think it should still work.
Ok, it is somehow related
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:48:53PM +0200, Miklos Vajna wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:12:45PM +0200, Richard Cochran
> wrote:
> > Can't I just force cppunit to build manually beforehand?
>
> make cppunit.all
Tried that already, too. Here is what I got:
PARALLELISM=1 make
Hi Richard,
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 02:12:45PM +0200, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> Can't I just force cppunit to build manually beforehand?
make cppunit.all
Should do that, though you just hide the root cause with that. :-)
Regards,
Miklos
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:08:23PM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 05/08/2015 10:45 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> >1. Where is the dependency from sal->cppunit specified?
>
> in sal/Executable_cppunittester.mk:
>
> >$(eval $(call gb_Executable_use_externals,cppunittester,\
> > boost_header
On 05/08/2015 10:45 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
1. Where is the dependency from sal->cppunit specified?
in sal/Executable_cppunittester.mk:
$(eval $(call gb_Executable_use_externals,cppunittester,\
boost_headers \
cppunit \
))
___
Dear list,
I am trying to build Version 4.4.0.3 with a -j30 parallel build, but I
am running into this error.
In file included from
/git/libreoffice/sal/cppunittester/cppunittester.cxx:28:0:
/git/libreoffice/include/cppunittester/protectorfactory.hxx:24:31: fatal
error: cppunit/Protector.h:
21 matches
Mail list logo
