Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I think a patch would be the safest bet, if only to save those that
> like typing in the commands by hand some trouble.
>
>> Incorporating the patch in -dev is easy enough, but how should we
>> phrase the errata page?
>
> If we do put this into an errata, I think we'd need to explicitly
> state the packages we know of that need recompiling otherwise folks
> might think they need to recompile their entire system. At the
> moment, I'm yet to be convinced of the risk of this bug being
> triggered and the consequences thereof. Do we really need to patch
> this, or can we wait until an upstream release contains a fix for it?
For -dev, I think we can wait for the next upstream release.
If we do want to make a change, a sed is more visble than a patch. I
looked at the code and finding a regex match would be a bit difficult
due to the ambiguity. However the following would work:
sed -i -e "6098 a \ if (tree_int_cst_sgn (c) == -1) break; " \
gcc/fold-const.c
That's only slightly harder than typing in a patch line and most people
would copy/paste anyway.
I agree with you about the lack of risk though.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
