| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:16:45AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> So - what to do? I can't live without palemoon now. Does it make sense |
| 4 |
> to exclude it (as in '-- --exclude gcc palemoon') and keep the old gcc |
| 5 |
> slot around? I guess that will work if palemoon is linked with the |
| 6 |
> -rpath option. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Or do I have to mask gcc-5 until palemoon is fixed (and will it ever be?) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I build Pale Moon manually with gcc-5.4.0, and install in my home dir |
| 11 |
and it works fine. I can give you manual build instructions and a |
| 12 |
quick-n-dirty framework. I believe Pale Moon has problems with the new |
| 13 |
ABI. I've been successfully using a custom-built gcc-5.4.0, built |
| 14 |
with... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You can also force gcc to use the old ABI by including... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
...in CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS when using a standard gcc-5.4.0. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I'm updating my "hot backup" machine now, and then I'll switch gcc |
| 25 |
and upgrade. If it doesn't break my hot backup machine, I'll do the |
| 26 |
production machine. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 30 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives