Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support compilation with Qt 4.6 #1

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 6, 2012
Merged

Support compilation with Qt 4.6 #1

merged 2 commits into from
Jul 6, 2012

Conversation

rolk
Copy link
Member

@rolk rolk commented Jul 6, 2012

Normally I wouldn't advocate supporting such old versions, but these are the only changes that prevent the program from being compiled on Ubuntu Lucid (previous and still supported LTS).

rolk added 2 commits July 6, 2012 12:29
Versions of Qt < 4.7 do not have a QString constructor from QChar*
without specifying the size of the string. However, since the QString
is copy-on-write, the QString object can be passed to the copy
constructor of the return value directly!
Each version of Qt supports a set of OpenGL levels; the level displayed
to the user is only as high as what was supported at compile-time. Hence
it should be harmless to degrade gracefully to previous Qt versions.
@alfbr
Copy link
Member

alfbr commented Jul 6, 2012

Are you sure it compiles with 4.6? I would have liked to hear from Jacob or Magne whether functionality from 4.7.3 is necessary. Generally speaking I do advocate supporting such old versions, we have do deal with RHEL where the latest version 6 ships with version 4.6.2 of Qt.

@rolk
Copy link
Member Author

rolk commented Jul 6, 2012

I am running it on my Ubuntu Lucid workstation right now :-) Haven't tested it extensively though, but I don't think that the changes can break that much.

@rolk
Copy link
Member Author

rolk commented Jul 6, 2012

Grr. It seems that GitHub automatically updates the pull request when I push new commits to my private branch; I only intended commits up to 0d17997 to be part of this request ... There, much better!

@alfbr
Copy link
Member

alfbr commented Jul 6, 2012

Well it seems this one is clear for merging anyway, and with Jacob's support I will merge it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants