gimp-2.0.1 fails to compile

[Nick Hudson]

Eric Sandall wrote:

>Quoting Chad Kittel <vertigo at wi.rr.com>:
>  
>
>>On Wednesday 14 April 2004 19:26, Nick Hudson <nhudson at lunar-linux.org>
>>wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 19:13 -0500, Chad Kittel wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday 14 April 2004 18:03, Nick Hudson <nhudson at lunar-linux.org> 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>>Great glad it build now.  Maybe I should make the module change to -O2
>>>>>if there is -O3 in the lusers CFLAGS.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Please do not, I have it compiling fine with -O3
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I am talking about just with this particular module
>>>      
>>>
>>Me, too.  -O3 worked just fine for this module for me... as I said before "I
>>
>>have it compiling fine with -O3".  But if you wanna lean on the safe side, I
>>
>>won't argue anymore as I already have mine compiled/installed -O3 ;)
>>    
>>
>
>It sounds as though gimp only needs to use -O2 or less if someone is using
>gtk+2.2 instead of gtk+2.4. Chad, do you have gtk+2.4? If so, that would seem
>to bear this theory out, and if that's so then CFLAGS would only need to be
>"downgraded" to -O2 (if -O3 is in there) when gtk+2 < 2.4.
>
>-sandalle
>
>  
>
I think that is basically what I said yesterday, but let me try to recap 
here.  He originally said that gimp would not compile.  I asked him to 
drop to -O2 for that module's compile only and see if that fixed it.  He 
came back and said that it did compile after he changed it.  Next I said 
ok great I will change the module to compile in -O2 if -O3 is present in 
the CFLAGS.  He said no dont do that because he compiled it with -O3. 

So He contradicted himself in saying that he compiled in -O2 just fine 
then said no he compiled in -O3.  So I am confused.  Anyway personally I 
never use -O3 because of the risks involved with something like this.  I 
will fix the module to change down to -O2 if -O3 is present only.  And 
this goes for only the gimp module just to be clear.

Nick