On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 10:02:18AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi, Hi Paul,
> On 05-01-2024 18:08, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > I have just given it back, let's see what happens. > > Didn't help. it did. > I asked rmadison: > paul@mulciber ~ $ rmadison gcc-mingw-w64-i686-posix --suite=unstable > gcc-mingw-w64-i686-posix | 12.3.0-9+25.3 | unstable | mips64el > gcc-mingw-w64-i686-posix | 13.2.0-4+26.1 | unstable | amd64, arm64, armel, > armhf, i386, ppc64el, riscv64 > gcc-mingw-w64-i686-posix | 13.2.0-9+26.1 | unstable | s390x > > That version number for s390x looks weird compared to the version number for > the other architectures. Could there be a problem in that area? That's fine, various binutils/gcc cross packages encode the version they were built with in their own version number. Package: gcc-mingw-w64-i686-posix Version: 13.2.0-4+26.1 Built-Using: gcc-13 (= 13.2.0-4) > Paul > PS: mips64el still fails, which now we check for mips64el again is a problem > that needs to be resolved too. gcc-13 runs into the same binutils issue, I haven't yet checked whether it's binutils or gcc or something else that changed and causes it. cu Adrian
