| 1 |
On Friday 07 July 2006 13:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 07 July 2006 17:31, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > As I pointed out on irc (to clarify), its still an issue even with |
| 4 |
> > gcc-3.4.6. Its just well enough filtered, and as Mike pointed out, they |
| 5 |
> > 'fixed' it in 3.4.5 via specs, and 3.4.6 by backporting patches from |
| 6 |
> > 4.0.1 I think. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> For what I know, the last issue was fixed with 3.3/3.4, so this sounds new |
| 9 |
> to me. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
i dont think the segfaults applied to the 3.3 branch as the code was new to |
| 12 |
the 3.4 branch |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
the issues were worked around in 3.4.5 via specs filtering, 3.4.6 included one |
| 15 |
fix and i backported the other, 3.4.4 and older i dont know the status of |
| 16 |
(but i'd be inclined to push people to 3.4.6 anyways and cut 3.4.[0-4]) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> That said, I think this is up to now the only point that would make me |
| 19 |
> rethink over this whole idea. For a pure simple and practical problem. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
doesnt seem like a valid roadblocker to me ... but i see the toolchain as |
| 22 |
something higher up guys shouldnt have to worry/think about; fix the gcc |
| 23 |
bugs, dont work around them in ebuilds |
| 24 |
-mike |
Archives