El Jueves, 14 de Julio de 2005 19:05, David Martínez Moreno escribió: > Hello, Mike. I have read all the (in)famous bug Redhat#161242, regarding > libvgahw.a. It seems that you rolled out a -43 release that intends to fix > this problem. As far as I can tell, gcc developers have not agreed about > the path for fixing this issue. > > My question is: what have you done for #161242 in that latest release? > Maybe apply the patch that Olivier Baudron posted in > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161242#c63, or simply > compile without optimization libvgahw.a, or a third solution? > > Given that you seem to be responsible for this last release, I prefer to > ask you, and avoid reading all the patches in -43 if possible. ;-) (After some search and download by my own) Oh, I see...you applied the patch I referred above. Only a thing, the comments in the patch are not true, it is not on comment #56 (that is the old patch), but on comment #63. :-) It is cool to have the patch tested by your community. :-) We would thank if you have additional info from GCC team. The bugzilla does not show up anything new. Thank you very much, and best regards, Ender. -- - I didn't come here to play poom-bow on the radio. So tomorrow from 5 to 7 you're gonna give yourself a hand, green? - (Supergreen). -- Korben Dallas & DJ Ruby Rhod (The Fifth Element). -- Debian developer
Attachment:
pgpHd0vG91tpg.pgp
Description: PGP signature