Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> That is fixed already for a few hours.
And Qt has now been rebuilt (by rdieter) with var-tracking-assignments
enabled:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=131619
Thanks to all you GCC folks for fixing the bug so quickly! :-)
Kevin Kofler
--
fedo
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:44:22PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> the new debuginfo, this includes at least Qt and KDE (though Qt currently
> trips over a bug in the var tracking and has to disable it, but I'm
> confident this will get fixed quickly if it isn't already). The GNOME
That is fixed a
Tom Lane wrote:
> ISTM the major argument in favor of letting this in now, namely better
> debuginfo data, is essentially moot because it missed the mass rebuild.
> The majority of packages are going to go out with old debuginfo.
Well, all the frequently rebuilt / frequently updated packages will
John Reiser (jrei...@bitwagon.com) said:
> If I had relied solely on Rawhide report, then there would have been
> no progress from Tuesday morning to Thursday evening.
The delays in rawhide had nothing to do with the new gcc, FWIW.
Bill
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redha
On 09/11/2009 12:03 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Sep 11, 2009, John Reiser wrote:
<>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521322
This bug was opened before the new GCC. Exactly *one* kernel build
failed because of the new GCC feature. I can't find any evidence that
this bug i
On Sep 11, 2009, John Reiser wrote:
> Not fast enough to avoid a two-day slip in rawhide kernels.
?!?
A work-around that enabled a successful kernel build was offered within
minutes. A patch that fixed the bug was offered within hours. A GCC
with the fix was available about half a day after t
On 09/10/2009 06:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Wielaard writes:
>> Jesse Keating redhat.com> writes:
>>> This is my issue too. There is claim that it was tested, yet it wasn't
>>> tested in the same place we require every other feature to be tested,
>>> that being rawhide.
>
>> Although it obvi
On 09/11/2009 12:34 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Dave Airlie redhat.com> writes:
Wierdly the first package that broke when this was pushed was the
kernel
... And Alex has been fast fixing any issues.
Not fast enough to avoid a two-day slip in rawhide kernels.
Rawhide kernel is the critical
Dave Airlie redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 21:27 +, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Although it obviously would have been far nicer to have had this all in
> > the mass rebuild, there were multiple test builds against rawhide packages.
> > I
> > did a build of the rawhide kernel package
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 21:27 +, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Jesse Keating redhat.com> writes:
> > This is my issue too. There is claim that it was tested, yet it wasn't
> > tested in the same place we require every other feature to be tested,
> > that being rawhide.
>
> Although it obviously would
Mark Wielaard writes:
> Jesse Keating redhat.com> writes:
>> This is my issue too. There is claim that it was tested, yet it wasn't
>> tested in the same place we require every other feature to be tested,
>> that being rawhide.
> Although it obviously would have been far nicer to have had this
Jesse Keating redhat.com> writes:
> This is my issue too. There is claim that it was tested, yet it wasn't
> tested in the same place we require every other feature to be tested,
> that being rawhide.
Although it obviously would have been far nicer to have had this all in before
the mass rebuild
Josh Boyer gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:43:26PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >Because we really want it in F12, to make e.g. systemtap usable. It got
> >quite a lot of testing already and has been in development for 2 years.
> >Originally it was expected to be merged early in t
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> There were so far 3 bugreports related to this, 2 of them are already fixed,
> LLVM build is just needing too much memory on completely insane source
> (people calling functions with 1375 arguments, 685 out of it are classes
> with non-trivia
On Sep 10, 2009, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> This bug affects LLVM on ppc:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522316
> I've Cc:ed you on it.
Thanks, I'm on it.
BTW, I wanted to mention that in the e-mail that started this thread,
but failed. You all feel free to get in touch w
On Sep 10, 2009, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:35:09AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:46:26PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
>>> generates much better debug information in optimized program
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 08:27 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> The largest problem I have with all this is the fact that the release
> guidelines that everyone else has to follow don't appear to be followed
> at all in this case. You're introducing a backported feature into a
> critical path package after
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:43:26PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 07:32:07AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >Why are you backporting something like this from a non-released compiler
>> >into F12 _after_ Alpha and particularly _after_ the mass rebuild?
>>
>> No response? None?
>
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 07:32:07AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >Why are you backporting something like this from a non-released compiler
> >into F12 _after_ Alpha and particularly _after_ the mass rebuild?
>
> No response? None?
>
> I mean, I'm not asking for much. All I want is an explanation a
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:35:09AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:46:26PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
>>generates much better debug information in optimized programs.
>>
>>The feature has been under developmen
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
>>> generates much better debug information in
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
>> generates much better debug information in optimized programs.
>>
>> The feature has been under development
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
> generates much better debug information in optimized programs.
>
> The feature has been under development for a couple of years, and it's
> recently been accepted into GCC, fo
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:46:26PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
>generates much better debug information in optimized programs.
>
>The feature has been under development for a couple of years, and it's
>recently been accepted into GC
Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
generates much better debug information in optimized programs.
The feature has been under development for a couple of years, and it's
recently been accepted into GCC, for GCC 4.5. We've backported it for
Fedora 12.
I'd appreciate if
25 matches
Mail list logo
