[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] Difficulty building with "dll" attributes and new wx

From: Greg Chicares
Subject: Re: [lmi] Difficulty building with "dll" attributes and new wx
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:37:47 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0

On 2020-07-21 15:36, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 15:05:10 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
> wrote:
> GC> On 2020-07-21 13:22, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> GC> [...]
> GC> >  After wasting literally 2 hours on trying to understand what was going 
> on
> GC> > here, I've finally realized that it was just a matter of forgetting a
> GC> > single character in an innocuous change half a year ago. I've finally 
> fixed
> GC> > this in
> GC> > 
> GC> > 
> https://github.com/wxWidgets/wxWidgets/commit/b762d2fb0f5cb5333e77df1ab3be52f6ce752cce

I've tested that, and it really does fix the reported issue.
My testing might seem superfluous, but you're so close to a
wx release that it's good to be doubly sure, especially
because of the eldrichness of autoconf...

>  I honestly have no idea, but you need to remember that configure is
> generated by autoconf and is really, really not supposed to be read by
> human beings (I'm convinced Lovecraft was a visionary and had actually
> foreseen autoconf output ahead of his time), please don't lose your sanity
> by looking at it.

Having unwound that scroll, I did seach, vainly, for the
root cause of that
But I broke off searching when I satisfied myself that
it's necessarily a defect, but not necessarily findable.

>  So unfortunately I'm afraid that not being dumb and making mistakes in
> configure.in is still the best strategy available. The sad thing is that I
> don't think writing CMake scripts, which are the new de facto standard, is
> any better. There must be something intrinsically Lovecraftian in the build
> systems...

Forsaking gnu make for cmake is like abandoning good
old Ctulhu for...who's the one whose name isn't to be
uttered? Oh, yeah, it's Hastu

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]