On 17-02-2015 09:40, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > On 17-02-2015 08:05, Pierre Labastie wrote: >> Le 17/02/2015 00:40, Fernando de Oliveira a écrit : >>> Actually, Michael Stahl included a new work-around. It was necessary gcc >>> (GCC) 4.9.2 20141101 (Red Hat 4.9.2-1) and a change of a switch hit the >>> bug [1], who previously couldn't reproduce it [1] >>> >>> Closing comment [3] in the bug has the info to find the patch [4]. >>> >>> If someone wishes to try the patch and add to our repository, I am >>> attaching the original one here. I will try to test probably tomorrow. >> I'll do that, >> >> I understand the patch is not needed on 64 bit, is it? > > Well, both patches (the one on the book and the new one) are > work-around, build fixes, not new developments. Originally reported only > for i686, at some point, people included x86_64. I only tested the older > patch in 32 bit. If you have built for 64 bit, without a gcc-4.9 patch, > any LO version since 4.2.3.3, it is an indication that we can keep our > note that the patch is only for 32 bit. And I think at least one of you, > Ken or Bruce have done that. If my last sentence is false, I believe > that builds during the BLFS freeze will demonstrate the point.
Commit was pushed to LO-4-4 and LO-4-3. I'm at this moment running a build (32bit). -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
