From 9675db4e7f626a14007f743baccaa9e062868432 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ruben Di Battista Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 21:00:46 +0200 Subject: qt: Fix build with GCC9 for version 4 (#12832) * qt: Fix build w/ GCC9 for @4: * qt: Fix patch filename and qt version * Fix typo in patch name --- var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/qt/package.py | 4 ++ .../builtin/packages/qt/qt4-gcc9-qforeach.patch | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+) create mode 100644 var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/qt/qt4-gcc9-qforeach.patch (limited to 'var') diff --git a/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/qt/package.py b/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/qt/package.py index 158b9b6e3e..8b192de89f 100644 --- a/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/qt/package.py +++ b/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/qt/package.py @@ -105,6 +105,10 @@ class Qt(Package): working_dir='qtbase', when='@5.10:5.12.0 %gcc@9:') + # Fix build of QT4 with GCC 9 + # https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=925811 + patch("qt4-gcc9-qforeach.patch", when="@4:4.999 %gcc@9") + # https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-74196 # https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 patch('qt4-gcc8.3-asm-volatile-fix.patch', when='@4') diff --git a/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/qt/qt4-gcc9-qforeach.patch b/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/qt/qt4-gcc9-qforeach.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ae54cdbc1e --- /dev/null +++ b/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/qt/qt4-gcc9-qforeach.patch @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +From c35a3f519007af44c3b364b9af86f6a336f6411b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Thiago Macieira +Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:17:46 -0800 +Subject: [PATCH] Redo the Q_FOREACH loop control without GCC statement + expressions + +It's possible to do without them, which probably makes the number of +supported compilers a lot bigger: they just need to support decltype() +or __typeof__. + +That includes the Intel compiler. The old code was also apparently +working, but no one had realized the old workaround for some old version +was still in place. + +The loop overhead is more or less the same. I have not done benchmarks, +but inspection of the generated assembly shows more or less the same +number of instructions. + +Change-Id: I32d499c84a6ddd19d994b49f17a469acb5c3a3f1 +Reviewed-by: Olivier Goffart +Reviewed-by: Marc Mutz + +Backported to Qt 4 + +--- a/src/corelib/global/qglobal.h ++++ b/src/corelib/global/qglobal.h +@@ -2482,22 +2482,32 @@ typedef uint Flags; + + #endif /* Q_NO_TYPESAFE_FLAGS */ + +-#if defined(Q_CC_GNU) && !defined(Q_CC_INTEL) && !defined(Q_CC_RVCT) ++#if (defined(Q_CC_GNU) && !defined(Q_CC_RVCT)) + /* make use of typeof-extension */ + template + class QForeachContainer { + public: +- inline QForeachContainer(const T& t) : c(t), brk(0), i(c.begin()), e(c.end()) { } ++ inline QForeachContainer(const T& t) : c(t), i(c.begin()), e(c.end()), control(1) { } + const T c; + int brk; + typename T::const_iterator i, e; ++ int control; + }; + ++// Explanation of the control word: ++// - it's initialized to 1 ++// - that means both the inner and outer loops start ++// - if there were no breaks, at the end of the inner loop, it's set to 0, which ++// causes it to exit (the inner loop is run exactly once) ++// - at the end of the outer loop, it's inverted, so it becomes 1 again, allowing ++// the outer loop to continue executing ++// - if there was a break inside the inner loop, it will exit with control still ++// set to 1; in that case, the outer loop will invert it to 0 and will exit too + #define Q_FOREACH(variable, container) \ + for (QForeachContainer<__typeof__(container)> _container_(container); \ +- !_container_.brk && _container_.i != _container_.e; \ +- __extension__ ({ ++_container_.brk; ++_container_.i; })) \ +- for (variable = *_container_.i;; __extension__ ({--_container_.brk; break;})) ++ _container_.control && _container_.i != _container_.e; \ ++ ++_container_.i, _container_.control ^= 1) \ ++ for (variable = *_container_.i; _container_.control; _container_.control = 0) + + #else + -- cgit v1.2.3-60-g2f50