On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:00:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler
<thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 20.07.2010 22:52, schrieb Firmicus:
>> Yesterday I had bug report on a segfaulting binary for x86_64 that ships
>> with texlive-bin in testing:
>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20199
>> I have reported the bug upstream:
>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3031498&group_id=145640&atid=7625 80
>>
>> and as suspected it turned out to be a bug with gcc 4.5:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45008
>>
>> Now this means I have no means to include a working binary of dvisvgm
>> for x86_64 in texlive-bin until that bug is resolved, since I cannot
>> rely on gcc 4.4.x and no patch is available...
>>
>> What is the procedure you guys follow is such situations?
>
> Run in circles, scream and shout at people. Then after some time start
> crying. I have really no idea.

A more practical approach would be to compile the package with gcc 4.4
(there are mirrors containing old packages) and accept that this is an
ugly but temporary workaround. You should also open a bug report on our
bug tracker and link to the upstream one. Last but not least don't
forget to blame Allan. ;-)

--
Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:16:35PM +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:00:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler
> <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> > Am 20.07.2010 22:52, schrieb Firmicus:
> >> Yesterday I had bug report on a segfaulting binary for x86_64 that ships
> >> with texlive-bin in testing:
> >> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20199
> >> I have reported the bug upstream:
> >> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3031498&group_id=145640&atid=7625 80
> >>
> >> and as suspected it turned out to be a bug with gcc 4.5:
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45008
> >>
> >> Now this means I have no means to include a working binary of dvisvgm
> >> for x86_64 in texlive-bin until that bug is resolved, since I cannot
> >> rely on gcc 4.4.x and no patch is available...
> >>
> >> What is the procedure you guys follow is such situations?
> >
> > Run in circles, scream and shout at people. Then after some time start
> > crying. I have really no idea.
>
> A more practical approach would be to compile the package with gcc 4.4
> (there are mirrors containing old packages) and accept that this is an
> ugly but temporary workaround. You should also open a bug report on our
> bug tracker and link to the upstream one. Last but not least don't
> forget to blame Allan. ;-)
>

A cleaner approach would be to build a gcc44 package, add
"export CC=gcc44" in the PKGBUILD and the same for CXX and maybe CPP if
used.

This approach guarantees that someone using ABS to build packages will
not get screwed and gives people supposedly reproducible results.

I personally export a lot of variables in makepkg and set their values
in "makepkg.conf". I even use a convenience variable "$GVER" which is
set now to "45" in my system.

It's also a good idea to add the dirname of the correct "libstdc++.so"
to "$LIBS". Linking against different "libstdc++" versions is not fun.

Using the correct "$GVER" can take care of all that. I'm not sure this
will work with the way Arch packages gcc though.

On 21/07/10 06:52, Firmicus wrote:

Hi guys,

Yesterday I had bug report on a segfaulting binary for x86_64 that ships
with texlive-bin in testing:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20199
I have reported the bug upstream:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3031498&group_id=145640&atid=7625 80

and as suspected it turned out to be a bug with gcc 4.5:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45008

Now this means I have no means to include a working binary of dvisvgm
for x86_64 in texlive-bin until that bug is resolved, since I cannot
rely on gcc 4.4.x and no patch is available...

What is the procedure you guys follow is such situations?



File a bug and I will try and fix it. It seems to work on gcc trunk so
it is possible that there is a simple backport to the gcc-4.5 branch.


Allan

On 20/07/2010 23:16, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:00:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler
<thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:

Am 20.07.2010 22:52, schrieb Firmicus:

Yesterday I had bug report on a segfaulting binary for x86_64 that ships
with texlive-bin in testing:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20199
I have reported the bug upstream:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3031498&group_id=145640&atid=7625 80

and as suspected it turned out to be a bug with gcc 4.5:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45008

Now this means I have no means to include a working binary of dvisvgm
for x86_64 in texlive-bin until that bug is resolved, since I cannot
rely on gcc 4.4.x and no patch is available...

What is the procedure you guys follow is such situations?

Run in circles, scream and shout at people. Then after some time start
crying. I have really no idea.

A more practical approach would be to compile the package with gcc 4.4
(there are mirrors containing old packages) and accept that this is an
ugly but temporary workaround. You should also open a bug report on our
bug tracker and link to the upstream one.

Done: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20242
but I see that Allan is already listed on the cc list upstream.


Last but not least don't
forget to blame Allan. ;-)

allanisaserialbreaker

On 21/07/10 17:07, Firmicus wrote:

On 20/07/2010 23:16, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:00:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler
<thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:

Am 20.07.2010 22:52, schrieb Firmicus:

Yesterday I had bug report on a segfaulting binary for x86_64 that
ships
with texlive-bin in testing:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20199
I have reported the bug upstream:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3031498&group_id=145640&atid=7625 80


and as suspected it turned out to be a bug with gcc 4.5:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45008

Now this means I have no means to include a working binary of dvisvgm
for x86_64 in texlive-bin until that bug is resolved, since I cannot
rely on gcc 4.4.x and no patch is available...

What is the procedure you guys follow is such situations?

Run in circles, scream and shout at people. Then after some time start
crying. I have really no idea.

A more practical approach would be to compile the package with gcc 4.4
(there are mirrors containing old packages) and accept that this is an
ugly but temporary workaround. You should also open a bug report on our
bug tracker and link to the upstream one.

Done: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20242
but I see that Allan is already listed on the cc list upstream.



It is an interesting bug... It is fixed in gcc mainline. In fact, it
is fixed within a week of branching gcc-4.5, so it is weird that it has
not been backported.


Allan

On 21/07/2010 10:41, Allan McRae wrote:

On 21/07/10 17:07, Firmicus wrote:

On 20/07/2010 23:16, Pierre Schmitz wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:00:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler
<thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:

Am 20.07.2010 22:52, schrieb Firmicus:

Yesterday I had bug report on a segfaulting binary for x86_64 that
ships
with texlive-bin in testing:
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20199
I have reported the bug upstream:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3031498&group_id=145640&atid=7625 80


and as suspected it turned out to be a bug with gcc 4.5:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45008

Now this means I have no means to include a working binary of dvisvgm
for x86_64 in texlive-bin until that bug is resolved, since I cannot
rely on gcc 4.4.x and no patch is available...

What is the procedure you guys follow is such situations?

Run in circles, scream and shout at people. Then after some time start
crying. I have really no idea.

A more practical approach would be to compile the package with gcc 4.4
(there are mirrors containing old packages) and accept that this is an
ugly but temporary workaround. You should also open a bug report on our
bug tracker and link to the upstream one.

Done: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20242
but I see that Allan is already listed on the cc list upstream.



It is an interesting bug... It is fixed in gcc mainline. In fact, it is fixed within
a week of branching gcc-4.5, so it is weird that it has not been backported.


Allan


If you could release a new "backported" version of gcc 4.5 soon so that I can recompile
texlive-bin, you would be my hero, and I promise never to say that you broke anything ever
again


If for some reason this is not possible, then I'll try to grab gcc 4.4.4 from somewhere.

F

Am 21.07.2010 15:24, schrieb Firmicus:
> If you could release a new "backported" version of gcc 4.5 soon so that
> I can recompile texlive-bin,

Would be great.

> you would be my hero, and I promise never
> to say that you broke anything ever again

You can't do that! Who do we blame then? One of the new guys?

On 21/07/10 23:31, Thomas Bächler wrote:

Am 21.07.2010 15:24, schrieb Firmicus:

If you could release a new "backported" version of gcc 4.5 soon so that
I can recompile texlive-bin,


Would be great.



I have tracked the period where the fix surfaced onto the gcc mainline
to a 2 week period which is still several hundred commits... so maybe
I will figure this out by the weekend!


Allan

On 21/07/2010 15:31, Thomas Bächler wrote:

Am 21.07.2010 15:24, schrieb Firmicus:

If you could release a new "backported" version of gcc 4.5 soon so that
I can recompile texlive-bin,

Would be great.


you would be my hero, and I promise never
to say that you broke anything ever again

You can't do that! Who do we blame then? One of the new guys?

thomashatskaputtgemacht ?

Am 21.07.2010 17:02, schrieb Firmicus:
> On 21/07/2010 15:31, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>> Am 21.07.2010 15:24, schrieb Firmicus:
>>> If you could release a new "backported" version of gcc 4.5 soon so that
>>> I can recompile texlive-bin,
>> Would be great.
>>
>>> you would be my hero, and I promise never
>>> to say that you broke anything ever again
>> You can't do that! Who do we blame then? One of the new guys?
> thomashatskaputtgemacht ?
>

I only do kernel, initramfs, initscripts and such things. What could you
possibly break there?