Re: Please reenable GCJ on mips
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >Actually, there is one criterion missing: Does this bug really hurt us
> >bad (enough)? And my current answer to this is no, but of course, you
> >might want to persuade me. :)
> >So, I think we can say that this bug is even forwarded to upstream, as
> >mips Inc is aware of it and working on a fix.
> I begin to get the picture.
> Apparently the MIPS ABI is just plain broken. It contains some sort of
> impassable hard limit on relocation table size, breaking random packages at
> random times with no possible fix. Nobody can fix this without changing
> the ABI.
> Lovely. Good grief, I would not want to support this architecture under
> those circumstances, but as long as it doesn't interfere with supporting
> other architectures, if you think you can do it, that's fine.
> It seems to me that at a minimum, whenever this bug gets hit any fallout
> should be prevented from interfering
> with any other architectures. In other words, a GOT table overflow on MIPS
> should immediately mean ignoring MIPS for purposes of testing propagation
> of that package and all indirectly dependent packages.
Which is what happened before sarge by removing the affected packages