On 2017-12-03 22:45, Simon Thelen wrote: > It might be that palemoon has issues with certain > optimizations/instruction sets that are aggravated by using newer gcc > versions (which could turn on optimizations by default etc).
Yes, this is my provisional explanation too. > I tried checking when/why the GCC_SUPPORTED_VERSIONS was added to the > palemoon overlay ebuilds, but can't find an issue or commit introducing > it (didn't spend that long checking), but if I'm not the only one > affected by this it might be worth it to open an issue with upstream. Unfortunately I'm a really shy person and I'm easily turned off by any shade of hostility. And this is what I meant by my "good luck" remark. Upstream isn't quite overtly hostile but still I sense the message that the Linux port is a stepchild, just as it is with Firefox. All of which is a way of saying: if it's worth raising an issue, I'd rather not be the one to do it. > If you are on Ryzen (or potentially any architecture that isn't > Nehalem-Haswell) you could try seeing if it's the same issue I > experienced (testing with `ulimit -c unlimited', recompiling with -O1), > otherwise you could try out the ebuild I maintain at [1] which may have > some differences from the one in the palemoon overlay. My cpu is AMD Phenom. I'll do both of these things at some point when things are quiet here. -- Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet, if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup. To reply privately _only_ on Usenet, fetch the TXT record for the domain.
