On Tue, 01 Feb 2022 14:55:14 +0100
Thomas Haller wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 14:00 +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 11:09 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 02:55:14PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > > Apparently it was annobin (although it passed the test done during
> > > gcc.spec
> > > testing, apparently it was incompatible again).
> > > Florian has rebuilt it, so please just retry.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> after a few days, it
On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 14:00 +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 11:09 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > A new gcc with most importantly the
> > > >
On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 11:09 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > A new gcc with most importantly the https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172
> > > bug (that caused a lot of ppc64le
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:50 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 27/01/2022 01:30, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Kaleb tried a ceph build with ppc64le turned back on, but it's failed:
>
Only because I started the ceph build too soon and the new build of fmt
On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 11:09 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > A new gcc with most importantly the https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172
> > > bug (that caused a lot of ppc64le
On 26/01/2022 23:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
A new gcc with most importantly thehttps://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172
And another regression on x86_64 was introduced:
-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE not defined
-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS not defined
Reported: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047148
--
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:32:22AM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > A new gcc with most importantly the https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172
> > bug (that caused a lot of ppc64le failures) fixed and various other
> > fixes (e.g.
On 27/01/2022 01:30, Adam Williamson wrote:
Kaleb tried a ceph build with ppc64le turned back on, but it's failed:
I'm working on fixing fmt.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list --
On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> A new gcc with most importantly the https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172
> bug (that caused a lot of ppc64le failures) fixed and various other
> fixes (e.g. std::basic_string(std::nullptr_t) = deleted only done
> for C++23 etc.) is now in
That looks like it’s due to fmt not having been rebuilt with the ABI change
yet, presumably due to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045391.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022, at 7:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> A new gcc with
On Thu, 2022-01-27 at 00:46 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > A new gcc with most importantly the https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172
> > bug (that caused a lot of ppc64le failures) fixed and various other
> > fixes (e.g.
On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> A new gcc with most importantly the https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172
> bug (that caused a lot of ppc64le failures) fixed and various other
> fixes (e.g. std::basic_string(std::nullptr_t) = deleted only done
> for C++23 etc.) is now in
On Wed, 2022-01-26 at 23:57 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> A new gcc with most importantly the https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104172
> bug (that caused a lot of ppc64le failures) fixed and various other
> fixes (e.g. std::basic_string(std::nullptr_t) = deleted only done
> for C++23 etc.) is now in
14 matches
Mail list logo
