Jürgen Spitzmüller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Do I read correctly that we should apply the following patch to branch?
>
> Just go ahead if you think it's necessary.
Done.
JMarc
Pavel Sanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I see that lyx::support::abort is not defined anymore, but that it is
>> still referenced in src/client/boost.cpp. What does this mean?
>
> nothing, its in comment ;)
It looks like grep lied to me :)
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Do I read correctly that we should apply the following patch to branch?
Just go ahead if you think it's necessary.
Jürgen
> I see that lyx::support::abort is not defined anymore, but that it is
> still referenced in src/client/boost.cpp. What does this mean?
nothing, its in comment ;)
pavel
RafałMużyło <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quite a while ago, I created gentoo bug 214574, which resulted in
> trac changeset 24069 for lyx. However, I haven't tested that fix
> back then and when I finally did, I learned, that it was incorrect.
> The bug is triggered by combination of using gcc 4.
Quite a while ago, I created gentoo bug 214574, which resulted in
trac changeset 24069 for lyx.
However, I haven't tested that fix back then and when I finally did, I learned,
that it was incorrect.
The bug is triggered by combination of using gcc 4.3.0 AND adding
configure option '--disable-pch'.
