Testing file offset bits?

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Saturday 16 February 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 February 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >> Hi Alex,
> >> 
> >>     -some compiler flags tweaking
> >>     
> >>     -reenable the test for visibility in Qt
> >>     -reenable the test for FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 (... there may be maybe
> >>     some
> >> 
> >> embedded systems where this is not the case ?)
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Do you have any reason to think this is needed? The maybe is pretty
> >> strong in this sentence :).
> > 
> > First, there was probably a reason why this check was added, so just to
> > be sure I enabled it again (it has always been enabled in
> > FindKDE4Internal.cmake), it was only disabled in e-c-m.
> 
> I don't think adding code we don't understand to ecm is a good idea :).
> People have added things mistakenly, and people have added things for
> platforms where Qt 5 does not work.
> 
> Let's not try to 'maintain' things we do not understand.
> 
> Let's simplify and remove instead. In many cases, the correct place to fix
> things is in cmake. One of the whole motivations behind KDE Frameworks is
> to simplify or code, to rely on upstreams(primarily Qt and CMake), and to
> fix upstreams where necessary - not workaround them.

Dirk Mueller added it in 2008:
http://websvn.kde.org/?view=revision&revision=829068

If I remove every compiler flag where I'm not sure why it is needed, we'll be 
left with not much.

That's basically how I started in 2006, with minimal compiler flags.
Then over time issues appeared, and the flags were added for a reason.

I don't see why we should remove them now again and start over with adding 
them when we hit the same problem again.

So if you find out why it was necessary in 2008 and why it is now not 
necessary anymore, I'm all for removing it. But otherwise we should keep it.

Alex