| Summary: | dev-util/mingw-runtime-3.18: patch to work with gcc-4.6 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Toolchain Maintainers <toolchain> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | alon.barlev |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3446009&group_id=2435&atid=302435 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Maciej S. Szmigiero
2012-06-04 15:50:29 UTC
Is there any reason why you want to use mingw and not mingw-w64? mingw-w64 is much better maintained. I thought it's only for Win64, but now I see that it's not. Thanks for pointing this out. However, it still would be good to have this patch applied for mingw legacy users. I think the legacy should be removed as upstream is not active nor responsive. Even cygwin switched. If mingw-w64 is better in every inch then thats the right thing to do, but I don't think decision to remove mingw will be made right now, right? (In reply to comment #4) > If mingw-w64 is better in every inch then thats the right thing to do, > but I don't think decision to remove mingw will be made right now, right? I am not the decision making guy... But, spread the word, nobody should use legacy mingw anymore. should be all set now in the tree; thanks for the report! Commit message: Add fix for building with gcc-4.6 http://sources.gentoo.org/dev-util/mingw-runtime/files/mingw-runtime-3.18-gcc-4.6.patch?rev=1.1 http://sources.gentoo.org/dev-util/mingw-runtime/mingw-runtime-3.18.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3 Thanks, tested and works fine. (In reply to comment #0) > mingw-runtime-3.18 needs to apply a patch from > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/ > ?func=detail&aid=3446009&group_id=2435&atid=302435 . > > Otherwise, when using gcc-4.6 the compiled programs crash on TLS init in > mingw runtime code due to more aggressive optimization introduced in GCC 4.6. I guess the original code is just buggy. Looks like gcc is not the guy to blame: bug #436482 |
