On Thursday 30 March 2006 14:01, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 08:32:14PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 March 2006 19:08, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> > > This has previously been reported only for AMD64.
> >
> > As well as other 64 architectures when compiled with g++.
> >
> > > Does it hold for any 64-bit architecture? (UltraSPARC, Alpha, ... ?)
> >
> > Well, that's exactly what my note says.
> >
> > However, there is one report as of today that a "workaround" fix I made
> > to 1.38.6 resolves the problem so that -O0 is no longer required.
>
> Bacula's "News" page only has:
>
> - Note, with gcc (GCC) 4.0.1 20050727 (Red Hat 4.0.1-5) on an
> AMD64 CPU running 64 bit CentOS4, there is a compiler bug that
> generates bad code that causes Bacula to segment fault.
> Typically you will see this in the Storage daemon first. The
> solution is to compile Bacula ensuring that no optimization is
> turned on (normally it is -O2).
> This same compiler bug has been reported and confirmed with
> gcc (GCC) 4.0.2 20050901 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) running on
> an AMD64 CPU. This for the moment, I would recommend that all
> users of GCC 4.0.1 or greater turn off all optimization when
> compiling.
>
> Could you then update this page to reflect the current state?
Of course, in due course. Thanks for reminding me.
>
> Geert
--
Best regards,
Kern
(">
/\
V_V
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
