Le 18/02/2015 12:00, Fernando de Oliveira a écrit :
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?
Sending the same message,as in the other (OT) thread:
Right now, building LO without the patch on a 64 bit VM. Will let you
know if it passes.
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
