"Keith OHara" writes:
> If you can define the trampoline as a static member of the class whose
> member function is being called, that will be less surprising.
The whole point is that the trampoline will be provided automatically.
Having to define it manually would defeat the point, in particula
On Thu, 28 May 2015 01:36:54 -0700, David Kastrup wrote:
"Keith OHara" writes:
I had an old RedHat installation with gcc updated as far as I could to
4.6. In the next few weeks I'll find some reasonably-modern linux.
Well, using no longer supported systems with network access (and it's
pr
"Keith OHara" writes:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 23:10:17 -0700, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Keith OHara writes:
>>
>>> If I can't get the dependencies worked out I'll be tempted to skip
>>> the macro and use scm_call_1() through scm_call_3() in place of each
>>> of the three macro expansions.
>>
>> W
On Mon, 25 May 2015 23:10:17 -0700, David Kastrup wrote:
Keith OHara writes:
If I can't get the dependencies worked out I'll be tempted to skip
the macro and use scm_call_1() through scm_call_3() in place of each
of the three macro expansions.
Why? Seriously. 10.04 is not even supported
Keith OHara writes:
> Phil Holmes philholmes.net> writes:
>
>>
>> I've managed to work out how to upgrade Ubuntu 10.04 to gcc 4.8.1
>> with the help of StackOverflow, and can now compile again.
>
> I'm still working on sorting out dependencies.
>
> The troublesome macro asks is used in only th
Phil Holmes philholmes.net> writes:
>
> I've managed to work out how to upgrade Ubuntu 10.04 to gcc 4.8.1
> with the help of StackOverflow, and can now compile again.
I'm still working on sorting out dependencies.
The troublesome macro asks is used in only three places, creating
in each place
- Original Message -
From: "Carl Sorensen"
To: "David Kastrup" ; "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Master fails to compile
On 5/22/15 10:59 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
"Phil Holmes" writes:
4
On 5/22/15 10:59 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>"Phil Holmes" writes:
>
4.4.3. It's the version that came with lilydev 1.1
>>>
>>> I'm surprised it did not blow up around your ears earlier. That sounds
>>> about as old as we had in GUB before we were forced to upgrade in
>>> consequence of
"Phil Holmes" writes:
>>> 4.4.3. It's the version that came with lilydev 1.1
>>
>> I'm surprised it did not blow up around your ears earlier. That sounds
>> about as old as we had in GUB before we were forced to upgrade in
>> consequence of some template usage patterns last fall. What's the
>>
On 22/05/15 17:11, David Kastrup wrote:
"Phil Holmes" writes:
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Master fails to compile
So I suspect that we are within the C++ standar
David Kastrup writes:
> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "David Kastrup"
>> To: "Phil Holmes"
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:57 PM
>> Subject: Re: Master fails to compile
>
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To: "Phil Holmes"
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Master fails to compile
>>>>
>>>> So I suspect that we
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Master fails to compile
"Phil Holmes" writes:
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To: "Phil Holmes"
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Master fails to compile
>
>
>> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>&g
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Master fails to compile
"Phil Holmes" writes:
Does it help if you move the LY_DECLARE_SMOB_PROC lines in
lily/include/listener.hh which
"Phil Holmes" writes:
>> 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?
>
> Not 100% certain what change was needed. Below is a pa
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: Master fails to compile
Phil Holmes writes:
phil@Ubuntu:~/lilypond-git$ rm -rf build
phil@Ubuntu:~/lilypond-git$ sh autogen.sh --noconfigure &am
p;> 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 Liste
d$ 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:
19 matches
Mail list logo
