| 1 |
On Friday 11 October 2002 14:55, Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:02:29 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> David Nielsen <Lovechild@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I imagine we need the Java thing worked out, and maybe get up to GCC |
| 6 |
> > 3.2.1 and Glibc 2.3. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The "java thing" has not be solved satisfactorily yet, and is unlikely to |
| 9 |
> be until a gcc-3.2 compiled version of a commercial 1.3 or 1.4 JRE/JDK is |
| 10 |
> made available. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> (For those not in the loop, the "java thing" is the problem where the the |
| 13 |
> java plugin does not runtime link properly against mozilla due to C++ ABI |
| 14 |
> differences between gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.x; various LD_PRELOAD hacks have |
| 15 |
> been floating around, but we have so far elected not to apply these). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Also mozilla compiled with gcc-3.2 and the flash plugin is extremely unstable. |
| 19 |
I posted a bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9016 with a changed |
| 20 |
gcc-2.95.3 ebuild that let it be build aside gcc-3.2. It also contains |
| 21 |
changed mozilla and galeon ebuilds that use this gcc if available. I know |
| 22 |
using one compiler only is a better solution and that mozilla and the plugins |
| 23 |
should just work with gcc-3.2 but they don't and I'm not going to have a |
| 24 |
terible browsing experience until they do. These builds work (and I now have |
| 25 |
been crash free with my browser for 4 hours, while it used to be a lot |
| 26 |
shorter with the gcc-3.2 compiled version), although people must not forget |
| 27 |
that removing gcc-2.95.3 will break it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Paul |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 33 |
Junior Researcher |
| 34 |
Mail: pauldv@××××××.nl |
| 35 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives