> From: Harold L Hunt II
>
> The lesstif package was last built and released (0.93.94) with gcc-3.3.1
> (or earlier, not sure). Performing a rebuild of the lesstif source as
> released (or any lesstif version after that) results in a good build,
> but one that gives a "status access violation"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Billinghurst, David (CALCRTS) wrote:
| I have seen this with a few packages I have tried to build recently.
| One case I was looking at this week was octave with a home build shared
| libstdc++. This used to work for me.
I preume you mean the 2.0 branc
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> The lesstif package was last built and released (0.93.94) with gcc-3.3.1
> (or earlier, not sure). Performing a rebuild of the lesstif source as
> released (or any lesstif version after that) results in a good build,
> but one that gives a "status ac
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:58:32AM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>
>> The lesstif package was last built and released (0.93.94) with gcc-3.3.1
>> (or earlier, not sure). Performing a rebuild of the lesstif source as
>> released (or any lesstif version after
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 09:58:32AM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
> >You might also want to be aware of:
> >
> >http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2004-09/msg01101.html
>
> Does this mean that I should generate a new version of binutils?
Not necessarily
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Does this mean that I should generate a new version of binutils?
Releasing a new binutils would help with the data alignment issue
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-09/msg00230.html
(errm...will this cause compatibility problems? I don't *think* so, but
someone
Charles Wilson wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Does this mean that I should generate a new version of binutils?
Releasing a new binutils would help with the data alignment issue
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-09/msg00230.html
(errm...will this cause compatibility problems? I don't *t
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
There may be non-libtool-related instances where the .rdata issue is
biting someone, but I haven't seen any confirmed reports of that...yet.
Yes, I confirm that binaries are broken with or without
libtool-devel-latest, i.e. when popt is used and the standard:
const struc
Charles Wilson writes:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Does this mean that I should generate a new version of binutils?
Releasing a new binutils would help with the data alignment issue
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2004-09/msg00230.html
(errm...will this cause compatibility problems? I don'
Charles Wilson wrote:
> The other question is, how is the ".rdata is read only, you can't
change
> anything there" enforced? By whom? Is this something about the pei-x86
> format that is enforced by the Windows Runtime Loader, or is it simply
a
> convention enforced by our startup objects (crt0.o
Danny Smith wrote:
Back before .rdata was enabled for user data in GCC, const data was
put into ,text, which is normally readonly as well. But this, in
pe-dll.c:pe_create_import_fixup
line 2178
/* If we ever use autoimport, we have to cast text section
writable. */
config.text_read_onl
11 matches
Mail list logo
