| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Stroller |
| 2 |
<stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Mon, 29 September 2014, at 5:35 pm, Daniel Troeder <daniel@×××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> … |
| 6 |
>> IMO you shouldn't compare 4.8.x with 4.9.x. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Definitely this. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> OP should be doing everything he can to match the environment on both systems. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This means matching versions of gcc, glibc and of all their libraries and other dependencies. And of the libraries and dependencies for the program he's attempting to compile. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Since the problem is the same with dietlibc, glibc is not causing the |
| 15 |
discrepancy. And my program doesn't use any other library besides the |
| 16 |
C standard lib (glibc/dietlibc) and linux system calls. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Emerging gcc 4.9.1 now... I'll try compiling my program against |
| 19 |
dietlibc, since replacing glibc seems scary. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Note that gcc has a "vanilla" USE flag - I think it's disabled by default. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Sorry, should have mentioned that. I had the default flags. I just |
| 25 |
tried "vanilla" in case some patch would be causing the problem. No |
| 26 |
difference. (Same applies to the "nopie" flag.) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Jorge |
Archives