summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/ed/7d358848c7b7244b4d402a8de4a6483cf18d54
blob: 0a5bd7e5fb8559fa9935d0bf3e3ce14cd75ceccd (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1ToGKP-00069k-N5
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:29:05 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.171; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f171.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1ToGKO-0002X8-LB
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:29:05 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id dn14so8905288obc.16
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:28:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.245.20 with SMTP id xk20mr25263279obc.89.1356625739328;
	Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:28:59 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.128.139 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:28:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2YFM9-Lqp97xksfp7pW-8rPQYkdViShJ=-E2JCNt4B9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP2ior3tHm9feem9JKqg-WBOzfGqOpLVKvQ3Up_6xbk4yQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2YFM9-Lqp97xksfp7pW-8rPQYkdViShJ=-E2JCNt4B9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:28:59 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: vZhGhVrFsllsAw-YkCQBW_4qYYI
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1bJZLbAUOi8A0ne_6L+ugksVUy9X+PuwjuFKxWC6xtAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1ToGKO-0002X8-LB
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Has anyone compiled under MacOS 10.8?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:29:05 -0000

The problem mysteriously resurfaced. The magic incantation this time is to add:

unix:*-g++*: QMAKE_CXXFLAGS += -fpermissive

to the top. I suspect this may be related to how I am using qmake. To
make it spit out a real makefile instead of an xcode project, I have
to run it like "gmake -spec macx-g++", which perhaps ends up making
gcc stricter than it's supposed to be.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> I found that the problem is the version of the Qt SDK I used didn't
> like the new MacOS version. Re-installing Qt fixed it.
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> It appears that something about Boost doesn't play nicely with the default
>> build instructions (possibly the switch to clang++?).
>>
>> I will dig in eventually but for now, if anyone has a recipe that fixes
>> things, let me know.