[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Accepted gcc-defaults 1.118 (source all amd64)

On 05/20/2012 11:13 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 05/14/2012 10:27 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On 14.05.2012 09:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> On 13.05.2012 21:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>>> On 13.05.2012 18:42, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>> On 13.05.2012 21:22, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 18:58:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>>>>> which ones? are there any reports which are not tagged? I went through
>>>>>>> the list of Lucas' new batch and tagged the appropriate ones.
>>>>>> There were again some more in the last couple days.  They should be tagged
>>>>>> AFAIK.
>>>>> I am only aware of these usertags:
>>>>> debian-qa@lists.debian.org / qa-ftbfs-20120508
>>>>> do you known about a new rebuild?
>>>> From a trivial look the set from #672397 onwards on the usertagged bug list were
>>>> all filed in the past three days.
>>> looking at 98 and 99 this doesn't seem to be a "set".
>> They're a "set" in that they appear after each other on the usertagged bug
>> list.  I didn't say they had sequential bug numbers, but possibly could have
>> chosen a better description.
> After rebuilding gpsd today I had to realize that the stack protector makes one
> of the tools segfault since it was built with gcc 4.7. If gpsd wouldn't ship

Actually I'm not exactly sure if it is the stack protectors' fault, but it is
definitely a 4.7 related issue.

> with a largish test suite this fault would probably never have been detected
> before the release - so this makes me wonder how many non-obvious bugs like this
> the switch to 4.7 introduced - and how much the release of Whezy will be delayed
> because of it.

 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Reply to: