[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#914002: qtcreator's clang code model appears to be broken with kit = clang



El domingo, 18 de noviembre de 2018 16:45:57 -03 Sylvestre Ledru escribió:
> Le 18/11/2018 à 20:06, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer a écrit :
> > clone 914002 -1
> > reassign -1 src:llvm-toolchain-7 1:7.0.1~+rc2-4
> > affects -1 qtcreator
> > thanks
> > 
> > El domingo, 18 de noviembre de 2018 10:18:03 -03 Adam Majer escribió:
> >> On 2018-11-18 12:30 p.m., Roman Lebedev wrote:
> >>> If kit is clang (tried with both the clang 7, and llvm trunk),
> >>> the parsing appears to fail, pretty much all the C++ std:: symbols
> >>> are underscored, and marked as not found.
> >>> 
> >>> ii  libclang1-7                            1:7.0.1~+rc2-4
> >> 
> >> The problem is clang. Clang in Testing works just fine. When I upgraded
> >> Qt
> >> Creator, all is fine. But as soon as clang was updated, it breaks.
> >> Downgrading to clang 1:7-6 fixes the problem.
> >> 
> >> Looks like regression caused by clang 1:7.0.1~+rc2-4 and related.
> > 
> > Cloning the bug so. Hope I've got the right bts invocations.
> 
> Can you try if rebuilding qtcreator against this version of clang fixes the
> issue or not?

I personally can't promise it.

I was pointed at:

<https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39427#c9>

Is that in the archive already? It might be the cause of this bug.

-- 
A proprietary undocumented text format as the de facto standard -- and that's
what .doc is -- is a shame for all parties involved. It's like using a special
patented ink that can only be read with special patented sun glasses. Who
would want to use that for all their scientific, private and business
documents? Probably nobody. Why they do so with computers is beyond me.
  Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project.
  https://lwn.net/Articles/273715/rss

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: