From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9713A1383E0 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:24:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FAB821C075; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:24:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33E7621C036 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:24:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vapier.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 62BE5340813 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:24:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:24:41 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] moving gcc-5.2 to unstable Message-ID: <20151001142441.GN5374@vapier.lan> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20151001134947.GM5374@vapier.lan> <1443708682.20609.5.camel@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mI5TpPl/qDRoXxBg" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1443708682.20609.5.camel@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: c1b4f421-bc07-4426-bad7-365c7a9d241f X-Archives-Hash: 4ff6d65483134de0dc7e4995f409a3da --mI5TpPl/qDRoXxBg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01 Oct 2015 10:11, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 09:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > what do people want to have in place before we move gcc-5.2 into ~arch ? >=20 > For one thing, the fix for runtime failure in 64-bit wine: >=20 > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D66838 > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=3Drevision&revision=3D225935 did you file a bug for toolchain@ ? i'm not seeing one. changes don't go in w/out a bug on our side. -mike --mI5TpPl/qDRoXxBg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWDUIpAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBuDIP/08KctUPOxRv4B5aqlTqOFha iMgPmmsnKo6ubBTxeL+Sf74Gds3xj9A5RQCqb24O65Cb4TuIirDikYZhCm/hAusG NArVteVutSMIRM/RFAL21IFVsEPKrV0MpF1TDYv3FPsRKqp67IWcfYGVQ70tiAe0 8GPcZMR30ELJkFJqR7n5Zjh1vEqQpbUWVAXrkojqQyUHUeSXP/iVRZUJxLDxgvPC 3+1W1fqng9nvyV669K4xYCVfO+XixixyfiW2Iqi6EQvqJc+rmRLOJW2PWWKRQJkQ uZyi8viYS4EKq2Jg3db+EpAe1eQL6UfFB2niVphTkzStizINYGuPUW+iVtgVt5yN gGYmToi75TiDMas8mRDjVUf7zEjEaiewLwODJHOr9dto0+iuvsV7LcLXs5fsrBQv UQsYdNVFq4oJhjumbhIXfKla7UF53X6kyx6w8QHbQtPsYSVXDVUMGxBP8cHY+LaQ IcafXk8Ffffh9nVQce8u8lNPyJW7qIkZ9VFYdiSR69vI4TfeeLahCMDYP7hgFKCt 15RaKIkd5M+Qnuqq5dy8Z0VLa2ynQXHKNsF/pCIlaeN7mR2gPws3nozrdIQ/xk/y wK6HmSpB8HO5ggOrjbbwPrLJBSvCzCiuLtKj6h70fqYlpKalMwowC2o8WoJLhz9L mh3SsIJ3oOmNaSr7IoIr =ZR6U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mI5TpPl/qDRoXxBg--