Re: Bug#1005863: gcc-11: invalid opcode for Geode LX on i386
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 07:22, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 11:47:21PM +, James Addison wrote: > > Would it be fair to raise the severity of this bug to a release-critical > > level? > > No, it would be fair to remove Geode LX from the set of supported > processors. Those are now over 15 years old. Ok, thank you; understood. It looks like this was previously documented[1] for the Debian 9.0 (stretch) release in 2017, and later discussed[2] further. I'll continue following the upstream bug, but I clearly don't fully understand the problem yet. My hope was that we could continue to maintain (in fact, with my updated understanding: restore) support for the affected Geode LX platform. I can accept that that may not be possible. [1] - https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/i386/release-notes/ch-information.html#i386-is-now-almost-i686 [2] - https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/04/msg01091.html
Bug#1005863: gcc-11: invalid opcode for Geode LX on i386
Package: gcc-11 Followup-For: Bug #1005863 X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-...@lists.debian.org, debian-release@lists.debian.org, debian-pol...@lists.debian.org Hi folks, Bug #1005863 describes a gcc-11 behaviour that results in software that exits ungracefully on Geode LX i686 hardware. Despite self-reporting as i586 sometimes, Geode LX is in fact an i686 CPU (without physical address extensions and multi-instruction noops -- both optional per spec). My assessment -- which may be incorrect -- is that something like 20% of packages in the bookworm i386 suite are susceptible to the bug, so I think that installing bookworm on a Geode LX system would present users with a poor experience of Debian. Would it be fair to raise the severity of this bug to a release-critical level? I understand that toolchains are an important part of the ecosystem and that changes to them -- especially ones that may affect many packages -- should be undertaken with care, and that we are into bookworm's pre-release hard freeze. Thank you, James
