On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:25:50 +, Phil Grundig wrote:
Editing debug.h as you suggest got me past that next error as well! - thanks
very much again.
make -DUNUSED='' gives an invalid option error.
I guess Zan's comment is right, but I'm too tired right now to investigate.
Next problem (anoth
On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 15:54 +, walt wrote:
[cut]
> After expansion of the macro UNUSED) it looks like this on my gcc 4.1.2
> machine:
> virtual void on_progress_step (Progress&, int percentage
> __attribute__((unused))) { }
>
> The value of UNUSED seems to be compiler dependent, so maybe the
Editing debug.h as you suggest got me past that next error as well! - thanks
very much again.
make -DUNUSED='' gives an invalid option error.
Next problem (another compiler definition issue maybe?) is:
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../.. -I../.. -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BI
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:21:33 +, Phil Grundig wrote:
> Putting:
>
> #define UNUSED
>
> at the top of progress.h did indeed get past this error. Thanks! Maybe
> someone could file a bug for this for this version of gcc.
>
> make -DUNUSED doesn't seem to be a recognized argument to make.
Did
Putting:
#define UNUSED
at the top of progress.h did indeed get past this error. Thanks! Maybe someone
could file a bug for this for this version of gcc.
make -DUNUSED doesn't seem to be a recognized argument to make.
Also, setting and exporting PCRE_CFLAGS and GMIME_CFLAGS doesn't work, but
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:06:40 +, Phil Grundig wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm having difficulty compiling Pan 0.133 on what config.log says is the
> same setup I used to successfully compile 0.129 and 0.131 on
> Damnsmalllinux, unless I'm missing something:
>
> g++ (GCC) 3.3.4 (yes, I know it's old but
Hi
I'm having difficulty compiling Pan 0.133 on what config.log
says is the same setup I used to successfully compile 0.129 and 0.131
on Damnsmalllinux, unless I'm missing something:
g++ (GCC) 3.3.4 (yes, I know it's old but it worked before)
gtk+-2.10.9 and headers
gmime-2.2.9
Successfully bui
Chris Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 11
Oct 2008 00:33:38 -0400:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 03:30:03 + (UTC) Duncan wrote:
>>
>> > You criticize RMS for "requiring, either ethically or legally, that
>> > they use a particular name", but you concede t
