On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:02:15AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Systemcall.cpp:337:65: error: inconsistent user-defined literal suffixes
> ‘__FILE__’ and ‘QTOSTRING’ in string literal
> Systemcall.cpp:337:65: error: unable to find user-defined string literal
> operator ‘operator"" __FILE__
On 22/11/2011 22:09, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
On 21/11/2011 23:40, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>
> And won't have, as long as the core steers the gui [ 1/2 ;-) ]
>
> Andre'
And the core will be steering the GUI as long as we can't use qt
signals in the core.
And we won't use Qt signals
On 21/11/2011 23:40, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>
> And won't have, as long as the core steers the gui [ 1/2 ;-) ]
>
> Andre'
And the core will be steering the GUI as long as we can't use qt
signals in the core.
And we won't use Qt signals in the core as long as nobody makes the
effor
>
> And won't have, as long as the core steers the gui [ 1/2 ;-) ]
>
> Andre'
And the core will be steering the GUI as long as we can't use qt signals in
the core.
Vincent
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:44:04PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 21.11.2011 20:50, André Pönitz wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:11:11AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >>Peter Kümmel writes:
> >>
> >>| On 21.11.2011 00:02, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >>>
> This is boost warning if
On 21.11.2011 20:50, André Pönitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:11:11AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel writes:
| On 21.11.2011 00:02, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
This is boost warning if I am not mistaken.
I guess the boost people can trivially change this to std::unique_
On 21.11.2011 10:10, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel writes:
| On 21.11.2011 00:02, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
This seems to be our own problem.
Unless it is something we inherit from Qt.
Ahh nice... it is Qt. And the wonderfull non-c++ parts of Qt.
Oh well... I'll wait half a year be
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:11:11AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel writes:
>
> | On 21.11.2011 00:02, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >
> >> This is boost warning if I am not mistaken.
> >> I guess the boost people can trivially change this to std::unique_ptr.
> >>
> >> Systemcall.c
Peter Kümmel writes:
| On 21.11.2011 00:02, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> This seems to be our own problem.
>> Unless it is something we inherit from Qt.
>> Ahh nice... it is Qt. And the wonderfull non-c++ parts of Qt.
>>
>> Oh well... I'll wait half a year before repeating that test. Hopefully a
Peter Kümmel writes:
| On 21.11.2011 00:02, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> This is boost warning if I am not mistaken.
>> I guess the boost people can trivially change this to std::unique_ptr.
>>
>> Systemcall.cpp: In constructor
>> ‘lyx::support::SystemcallPrivate::SystemcallPrivate(const stri
On 21.11.2011 00:02, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
This is boost warning if I am not mistaken.
I guess the boost people can trivially change this to std::unique_ptr.
Systemcall.cpp: In constructor
‘lyx::support::SystemcallPrivate::SystemcallPrivate(const string&, const
string&)’:
This seems to
On 21.11.2011 00:02, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
This seems to be our own problem.
Unless it is something we inherit from Qt.
Ahh nice... it is Qt. And the wonderfull non-c++ parts of Qt.
Oh well... I'll wait half a year before repeating that test. Hopefully a
new version of Qt will have been rel
Fails spectacularly:
libs/signals/src/signal_base.cpp: In static member function ‘static void
boost::signals::detail::signal_base_impl::slot_disconnected(void*, void*)’:
libs/signals/src/signal_base.cpp:136:37: warning: ‘auto_ptr’ is deprecated
(declared at
/opt/gcc/gcc-trunk/lib/gcc/x86_64-u
13 matches
Mail list logo
