On 15.12.2021 04:48, Tatsuro MATSUOKA wrote:
  cygport qt5-base.cygport compile fails

$ cygport qt5-base.cygport compile
Compiling qt5-base-5.9.4-2.x86_64
Preparing build tree...
Creating qmake...
In file included from 
/usr/src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.x86_64/src/qtbase-opensource-src-5.9.4/src/corelib/tools/qbytearray.cpp:42:
/usr/src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.x86_64/src/qtbase-opensource-src-5.9.4/src/corelib/tools/qbytearraymatcher.h:
 In static member function ‘static QStaticByteArrayMatcherBase::Skiptable 
QStaticByteArrayMatcherBase::generate(const char*, uint)’:
/usr/src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.x86_64/src/qtbase-opensource-src-5.9.4/src/corelib/tools/qbytearraymatcher.h:103:38:
 error: ‘numeric_limits’ is not a member of ‘std’
   103 |         const auto uchar_max = (std::numeric_limits<uchar>::max)();
       |                                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/usr/src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.x86_64/src/qtbase-opensource-src-5.9.4/src/corelib/tools/qbytearraymatcher.h:103:58:
 error: expected primary-expression before ‘>’ token
   103 |         const auto uchar_max = (std::numeric_limits<uchar>::max)();
       |                                                          ^
/usr/src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.src/qt5-base-5.9.4-2.x86_64/src/qtbase-opensource-src-5.9.4/src/corelib/tools/qbytearraymatcher.h:103:61:
 error: ‘::max’ has not been declared; did you mean ‘std::max’?
   103 |         const auto uchar_max = (std::numeric_limits<uchar>::max)();
       |                                                             ^~~
       |                                                             std::max

Hi Tatsuro,

no idea, but I saw the same trying to build 5.12.12 recently.
However I have not see it in February when I was trying some patches
from Achim


I guess something is changed on handling
   std::numeric_limits<uchar>::max
on our C++ compiler.

The documentation
https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/limits/numeric_limits/

just reported only an expansion on C++11, but maybe something
in Cygwin is triggering a fault

Marco



--
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Reply via email to