On 17-02-2015 13:53, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > 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
Fixed at revision 15522, for i686. I understand that Pierre is taking care of x86_64 case: whether or not is needed, or if it doesn't matter if used or not? -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
