[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:00:31 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: gcc 4.6.1
Vasiliy,
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 08:23:39PM +0400, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 20:12 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > Given your recent commits, what's the readiness status for Owl moving to
> > gcc 4.6.1? What packages still fail to build, if any?
>
> In the first buildworld run all packages are buildable on x86_64. On
> i386 glibc still fails (an assembler issue).
>
>
> > Are there any known runtime issues with Owl packages rebuilt with gcc
> > 4.6.1?
>
> Currently the rebuilded groff segfaults. The issue is somewhere in glibc
> symbol table (__sincos() calls itself forever). I'm afraid there will
> be more such weird issues - we should update glibc itself soon.
>
> I'll likely change glibc fix - patch "inline" instances instead of
> passing -fgnu89-inline in CFLAGS.
Actually, you must revise the glibc fix. I can't even reasonably
distworld the current fix because it broke builds with gcc 3.4.5, which
does not recognize -fgnu89-inline.
Since this stuff is not distworld'ed, you may revise the fix without
updating the Release number and adding a new %changelog entry - just
revise the existing entry.
> > And what testing did you perform? Perhaps just multiple
> > buildworld iterations?
>
> Yes, I'll test it this way.
>
>
> > Also, can you please post your updated gcc.spec, along with info on any
> > issues with it (what you think remains to be done, etc.) such that we
> > can prepare it for commit? Are you packaging gcc's new files, such as
> > the libgomp stuff?
>
> I'll post spec files tomorrow (there are minor issues I'll fix myself).
Sounds good.
Thanks,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
