2006/1/27, Sam Briesemeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Cosimo,
>
> [...]
> Removing the optimizations worked for me, but I suspect that if
> you've removed them and it's still not working, then there's some other
> configuration/options that your compiler is using and it's causing errors.
> ... so you
> On 1/25/06, Cosimo Streppone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2006/1/18, Samuel Briesemeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > [...] ... I've since recompiled and it works now, though I'm not sure to
> what extent.
> > > I'll try recompiling it with no optimizations.
> >
> > I also tried recompiling
2006/1/18, Samuel Briesemeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [...] ... I've since recompiled and it works now, though I'm not sure to what
> extent.
> I'll try recompiling it with no optimizations.
I also tried recompiling with `-O0' but it makes no difference.
The error remains.
--
Cosimo
s stable for amd64 in the Gentoo
Portage tree.
-Original Message-
From: Kern Sibbald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:46 AM
To: bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Cosimo Streppone; Samuel Briesemeister
Subject: Re: [Bacula-users] Re: Bacula 1.36.3: back
Try compiling your daemons with all optimization turned off (i.e. no -O2).
This may be related to an apparent g++ code generation bug that we have seen
on 64 bit machines.
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 18:44, Cosimo Streppone wrote:
> [cc'd to bacula-users]
>
> 2006/1/14, Samuel:
> > I'm Sam. I'm
[cc'd to bacula-users]
2006/1/14, Samuel:
> I'm Sam. I'm a sysadmin using Bacula on a 64-bit machine as well, running
> Gentoo, and it appears we've encountered similar problems. A record of my
> situation is posted here: http://sial.org/pbot/15428
Mmh.. Looks quite similar to my case.
> I foun
