about those clang warnings

[Kevin Funk]

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 01:22:10 AM René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> On Wednesday January 27 2016 08:11:27 Kevin Funk wrote:
> >> for what clang (platform) versions are the added options? The system
> >> clang
> >> yells about them on OS X 10.9 (that's a 3.6 version).
> >
> >Ubuntu clang version 3.6.2-1 (tags/RELEASE_362/final) (based on LLVM 3.6.2)
> 
> That must be about the same version as the one on OS X 10.9 . More recent OS
> X versions provide more recent clang versions.
> >No warnings here. You mean your clang version is complaining about -Wno-
> >inconsistent-missing-override or -Wno-macro-redefined being unknown
> >options?
> Yes, about both. At each invocation.

Feel free to introduce compile-checks, similar to this:
  https://github.com/KDAB/GammaRay/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L151

I find Apple's politics about not revealing the *real* Clang version under the 
hood quite annoying, btw.

> >It might have been fixed in Qt 4.8.7, but it's very well possible we still
> >need this define in earlier Qt versions.
> 
> True. The block could probably be moved to a place where the Qt version is
> known?

If you figure out in what combination of Clang/Qt4 compilation succeeds 
without that define, sure.

(I won't spend time on that, though)

> I know that not all distributions are very reactive in providing new
> Qt versions (Ubuntu Trusty is still on 4.8.5 ...) but is there really a
> reason not to update to what is probably the last Qt4 version that will
> ever see the light?

Well, not my department :)

Cheers,
Kevin

> R

-- 
Kevin Funk | kfunk at kde.org | http://kfunk.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20160127/5bf31293/attachment.sig>