Bug#203324: unreproducible?
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:08:15AM +0200, Harald Nordg?rd-Hansen wrote:
> Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:
> > Not a bug. Current gcc-3.2/gcc-3.3 on sparc is geared toward a default
> > v8 hwmul target (e.g. real sun4m's and up). The reason being that the
> > old v7/v8softmul was bringing performance down noticably (and I mean
> > visually being able to measure small task differences).
> >
> > I announced probably 6 months or more ago that this would happen, so it
> > should be no surprise.
>
> I would suggest that this is flagged in the packages as well, as a
> user I'm sorry, but I just don't follow the sparc lists.
>
> > sun4c and sun4m-softmul owners should stick with woody.
>
> Why? A simple thing like flagging in gcc and(/or?) libc6 on upgrade
> that they now require kernel 2.4.21 or newer on some machines would be
> sufficient. But when doing a simple upgrade of a box and suddenly
> binaries start failing all over the place is certainly what I would
> call a bug.
>
> There are some of us out here that are just users of a platform.
> Please, when doing this sort of changes do flag them in at least the
> basic packages.
It will be in the release notes.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/
Reply to: