Doug Barton wrote: > Vinny Abello wrote: >> Just for clarification, is there any downside to this autoconf fix >> vs. how it was previously working? > > It was not working correctly previously, so no. > >> Does autoconf still not understand AMD64 on FreeBSD > > You're confusing "autoconf" and "the configure script provided in the > sources for BIND >= 9.5.x." There is also a variable of "what the > FreeBSD ports provide to configure by default" that I have deliberately > omitted for the sake of clarity. > >> and is your fix just defaulting to something lesser? > > No. > >> It appeared that the switches being run were for 32 bit after this >> fix, but I'm no expert on compilers by far. > > You'd have to dig into the source and really understand what's happening > now vs. what was happening before in order for me to answer this > question, and by the time you had done that work I would not need to > answer this question for you. :)
You would have a very hard time finding it just using code inspection since the bug was found several levels under the code since there were a number of Macros in place and the source of the problem was in the creation but the fix had to be elsewhere. I only found this leak because I had accidentally left on a debugging tool when test running on a Windows box and the debugging tool was causing it to break at the creation point. It took me quite a while to peel back the layers and find out why it was really complaining. The fix was easy, but understanding what needed to be fixed and why was not. Danny > The short version is that right now the port is doing what it should be. > > > hth, > > Doug > > _______________________________________________ bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users