yes I think that's a reasonable approach, ok
On 2025/01/10 17:53, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> Running a full bulk build on an apple M2, I see lots of failures due
> to code generated by lang/gcc/8,-f95 not being BT compliant, resulting
> in SIGILL crashes. Moving to lang/gcc/11 may help
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 17:53:19 +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>
> Running a full bulk build on an apple M2, I see lots of failures due
> to code generated by lang/gcc/8,-f95 not being BT compliant, resulting
> in SIGILL crashes. Moving to lang/gcc/11 may help fix this, but we're
> not there
OK
On 2025 Jan 10 (Fri) at 17:53:19 +0100 (+0100), Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
:
:Running a full bulk build on an apple M2, I see lots of failures due
:to code generated by lang/gcc/8,-f95 not being BT compliant, resulting
:in SIGILL crashes. Moving to lang/gcc/11 may help fix this, but we're
Running a full bulk build on an apple M2, I see lots of failures due
to code generated by lang/gcc/8,-f95 not being BT compliant, resulting
in SIGILL crashes. Moving to lang/gcc/11 may help fix this, but we're
not there yet.
The bulk of those failures is easily fixed by the diff below. I think
