On Sun, 2005-04-17 at 19:22 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> But I can't shake the feeling that it's crazy that libaspell
> got linked against two different C++ libraries. Can you
> try creating a minimal test case demonstrating this
> without involving inkscape? If so, maybe it's a glibc
> shared libra
On 2005-04-18, at 04:22, Dan Kegel wrote:
Once the gcc C++ ABI stabilizes,
i.e. once all the remaining C++ ABI compliance bugs have
been flushed out of gcc, this requirement can be relaxed."
"Thus in esp. on Judgment Day we will relax this requirement".
The changes in CPU instrution sets surpasses
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have a copy of Inkscape compiled with GCC 3.3, running on a GCC 3.4
based system. All of the C++ libraries it links directly against, like
GTKmm, are statically linked. In other words, it dynamically links
against no C++ libraries.
Inkscape dlopens libgtkspel
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 21:30:55 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> Do we really promise somewhere that this will work? I know that we warn
> in other places that it probably will not.
Yes, see the "Testing Multi-ABI binaries" section here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/abi.html
> Yes, symbol versi
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 11:47:05PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> I have a copy of Inkscape compiled with GCC 3.3, running on a GCC 3.4
> based system. All of the C++ libraries it links directly against, like
> GTKmm, are statically linked. In other words, it dynamically links
> against no C++ librarie
Hi,
I have a copy of Inkscape compiled with GCC 3.3, running on a GCC 3.4
based system. All of the C++ libraries it links directly against, like
GTKmm, are statically linked. In other words, it dynamically links
against no C++ libraries.
Inkscape dlopens libgtkspell, which in turn dlopens libaspe
