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

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:00:06 +0200, Thomas Bächler 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=762580

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 21/07/2010 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 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=762580

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

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! :D Allan

On 22/07/2010 06:04, Allan McRae wrote:

On 21/07/10 23:45, Allan McRae wrote:

...

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! :D

Woo! I found the commit that fixes this. And it only took about 12hours worth of compile time....

Allan, you're my hero! [And a special mention goes to the inventor of git-bisect :)] Quite amazing that it was only a matter of deleting one little line ...

Just waiting on upstream to comment on whether the backport is appropriate.

All right. Hopefully this can be cleanly backported (I guess it can). F

On 22/07/2010 22:51, Jan de Groot wrote:

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 09:18 +0200, Firmicus wrote:

...

Allan, you're my hero! [And a special mention goes to the inventor of git-bisect :)] Quite amazing that it was only a matter of deleting one little line ... gcc is maintained in SVN if I'm not mistaken. Allan did a SVN-bisect-by-hand :P

Allan Scissorhands! .. with the help of git-svn perhaps? ;)

Am 21.07.2010 17:02, schrieb Firmicus:

...

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 21/07/2010 15:31, Thomas Bächler wrote: thomashatskaputtgemacht ? ;)

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