Am 06.01.2014 02:41, schrieb James Holsenback:

> both branches (main & hotfix) pass configure (without LIBS="...") here's
> what relevant configure output looks like:
>
> checking for the pthreads library -lpthreads... no
> checking whether pthreads work without any flags... no
> checking whether pthreads work with -Kthread... no
> checking whether pthreads work with -kthread... no
> checking for the pthreads library -llthread... no
> checking whether pthreads work with -pthread... yes
> checking for joinable pthread attribute... PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE
> checking if more special flags are required for pthreads... no
> checking for boostlib >= 1.38... yes
> checking whether the Boost::Thread library is available... yes
> checking whether the boost thread library is usable... yes
> checking for sin in -lmkl... no
> checking for sin in -lm... yes
>
> and they both have problems during make starting here (there's more):
> .../vfe/libvfe.a(vfesession.o): In function
> `vfe::vfeSession::Shutdown(bool)':
> vfesession.cpp:(.text+0xcd2): undefined reference to
> `boost::thread::native_handle()'
> vfesession.cpp:(.text+0xce7): undefined reference to
> `boost::thread::join_noexcept()'
> vfesession.cpp:(.text+0xcfb): undefined reference to
> `boost::thread::detach()'

Not much of a surprise for the master, but shouldn't happen with the hotfix.

So here we go for another update...

> when we get this sorted out, what are the chances of leaving the hotfix
> branch for this kind of testing ... I'd like to add it to buildbot

I named this particular branch "hotfix/boost1.49-boost_system", which 
obviously isn't a good name if we want to use it as a general hotfixing 
branch ;-)

But I do agree that it's quite a good idea to have buildbot crunch 
through all hotfixes we might throw out, so I just renamed the branch to 
"hotfix".

Post a reply to this message