Jesse Allen wrote: > On Dec 18, 2007 12:20 PM, Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> John Klehm schrieb: >>> On Dec 18, 2007 9:43 AM, Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> As I recall this is not the only version that causes problems. Plus >>>> certain compiler >>>> flags have an influence as well. And as most distros ship gcc with a bunch >>>> of patches you probably can't even rely on the gcc version alone. >>>> >>>> Imo it would be better to collect the info on a wiki page. >>>> >>> Like this one? http://wiki.winehq.org/GccVersions >> ah, nice. didn't know about that one. >> >>> Nothing wrong with having the info output reflect the knowledge >>> gathered on the wiki page. >> So let's add to that info that gcc 4.2.2 (on gentoo) doesn't work. >> As well as recent 4.3-snapshots. (At least that was the status a few >> releases back, haven't tested in a while.) >> But they did work if you compile with -fstack-protector. And some >> distros(I think Ubuntu for example) patch gcc to use that flag by default. >> And at least with gcc-4.2.2 it was always very close at the line >> between working and non-working. Just a few changes in gdi/kernel/user >> could make a difference. So it might even vary between single wine releases. >> >> You want to put and more importantly maintain all those details in the >> src code? >> >> I don't think that this is such a great idea. But hey, that's just my >> opinion. >> >> > > > Hmmm. It's good that we have a wiki for this now. While that page > seems to be focused on SafeDisc, I have long known that gcc 4.0.x > breaks SecuRom. Should we differentiate the two? Maybe not. Since we > have a wiki up, I will probably link to it from my appdb pages now. If > there is anything we can do to identify which distros have broken > gcc's for copy protection we need to do it. These days I still get > people complaining their disc doesn't work and I have no clue what's > wrong as I have not seen a regression in years (this is older > SecuRom), and they do have what I consider to be a working version of > gcc. Sounds like a we're getting into packaging/flags stuff. I don't > even want to go there. > >
Ugh....this means that 4.2 for Ubuntu might NOT actually work, and that this is why System Shock 2 has been crashing at startup for me. I'm gonna try building with 3.4 and see if that fixes anything Thanks, Scott Ritchie
