[ITK-dev] Problems with Change in itkStaticConstMacro

[Bradly Lowekamp]

I have reproduced this error now with GCC 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. GCC version 4.5 works.

Thank you for your help in addressing this problem.

I apologize for not having documentation for the systems and justifications for the versions of compilation tools. I certainly should move to docker images to build the distributions for Linux as well. We have had great success with the portability and availability of the binary distributions for SimpleITK. This has involve a lot of testing and modification for the build platforms to get where it has been working. I would had for this to be reduce due to one preference for implementing static constant integers.

Brad

> On Jan 21, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Matt McCormick <matt.mccormick at kitware.com <mailto:matt.mccormick at kitware.com>> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Bradly Lowekamp <blowekamp at mail.nih.gov <mailto:blowekamp at mail.nih.gov>> wrote:
>> Gcc 4.2 runs into the same ITK bug with explicit instantiation too.
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex)
>> <matt at mmmccormick.com <mailto:matt at mmmccormick.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Bradly Lowekamp <blowekamp at mail.nih.gov <mailto:blowekamp at mail.nih.gov>>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> It’s certainly would be great if I could rely on using gcc 4.8+ for building
>> the distributions for SimpleITK. But my understanding for several situations
>> 4.1 is still essentially required.
>> 
>> 
>> What are the situations?  GCC 4.1 is not required by PEP 513.
>> 
>> 
>> Anaconda Python 2.7, OSX Python.org <http://python.org/> distribution and OSX system, need
>> apple’s gcc 4.2
> 
> How is this build environment reproduced (OSX and XCode version)?
> 
> 
>> Your blog post solution for static linking in un-accetable as I don’t want
>> to use a GPL license. Along with static linking not being recommended with
>> PEP 513, and lastly it can cause conflicts when used in a loaded module with
>> an older libc version.
>> 
>> 
>> My blog post does not say static linking is required or the GPL is required.
>> 
>> 
>> "Statically linking libstdc++ avoids version compatibility issues.”
>> 
>> Statically, linking an LGPL library such as libstdc++ is “messy”.
> 
> libstdc++ is different from glibc.
> 
> Statically linking libstdc++ in terms of the license is fine.  It is
> available with the GCC Runtime Library Exception:
> 
>  https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html <https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/license.html>
> 
> 
>> PEP 513 clearly says:
>> 
>> GCC <= 4.2.0
>> 
>> 
>> This excludes GCC 4.1.
>> 
>> 
>> 4.1 <= 4.2, so it’s included.
> 
> This excludes GCC 4.1 from being a requirement.  GCC 4.2 would work.
> 
> 
> Matt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/insight-developers/attachments/20160122/48ece520/attachment.html>