From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Gh7FS-0000bw-7b for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:22:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kA6GIMcI021275; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:18:22 GMT Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kA6GILcU001043 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:18:21 GMT Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Gh78Y-0005Uy-6G for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:15:51 +0100 Received: from ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.97.209]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:15:50 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:15:50 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-amd64] Re: Unexpected side effect of GCC 4 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <200611050845.42865.prh@gotadsl.co.uk> <200611051210.25023.prh@gotadsl.co.uk> <200611060929.52020.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: pan 0.118 (Gustaf Von Musterhausen) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: f8eb55a4-b835-4915-8937-deea73d3a638 X-Archives-Hash: b27ec37540459d05ecede46696632848 "Hemmann, Volker Armin" posted 200611060929.52020.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de, excerpted below, on Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:29:51 +0100: > where is the logic with that? > > You don't need to do regularly --emptytree emerges. If you don't change > gcc you never need it. So why? That's the thing. I haven't done a full emerge --emptytree since at least gcc-4.1.0, which was never unmasked (it's 4.1.1 that's unmasked). I did one sometime after 4.0, I think during the 4.1.0 release candidates, but not since. As for doing it every gcc upgrade, that's a bit ridiculous when you are running the weekly gcc snapshots as I was between 4.0 and 4.1. So, everything on my system has been compiled with (I think) at least a 4.1 release candidate or newer, but I haven't done a full --emptytree since 4.1.1 was released and unmasked, I know. Thus, particularly since I'm having that mysterious problem, it's time to do one, and see if the problem disappears. =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list