On Friday 07 July 2006 13:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 17:31, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > > As I pointed out on irc (to clarify), its still an issue even with > > gcc-3.4.6. Its just well enough filtered, and as Mike pointed out, they > > 'fixed' it in 3.4.5 via specs, and 3.4.6 by backporting patches from > > 4.0.1 I think. > > For what I know, the last issue was fixed with 3.3/3.4, so this sounds new > to me.
i dont think the segfaults applied to the 3.3 branch as the code was new to the 3.4 branch the issues were worked around in 3.4.5 via specs filtering, 3.4.6 included one fix and i backported the other, 3.4.4 and older i dont know the status of (but i'd be inclined to push people to 3.4.6 anyways and cut 3.4.[0-4]) > That said, I think this is up to now the only point that would make me > rethink over this whole idea. For a pure simple and practical problem. doesnt seem like a valid roadblocker to me ... but i see the toolchain as something higher up guys shouldnt have to worry/think about; fix the gcc bugs, dont work around them in ebuilds -mike
pgprKNDIDEP0b.pgp
Description: PGP signature
