From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ACF61382C5 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 68C70E0DDA; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blaine.gmane.org (unknown [195.159.176.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1874E0D83 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:26:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f2wdP-0002Ir-To for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2018 12:24:19 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox and addons no longer supported question Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:24:12 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <3f62fbf9-c160-60e4-e5dc-07cecf213439@gmail.com> <20180331173626.nmq7jbqi2r2sxuwc@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> <20180401143550.ia5mmamo5f44aysn@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> <20180401222629.lrhfnu5juhxcocda@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> <20180402002807.iyf6zepv3fvaa3fb@matica.foolinux.mooo.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 38aec2cb-2e04-4a91-b477-e0ac1d6acab3 X-Archives-Hash: 2f3996a409979ad7f1112c9309795a6b Bill Kenworthy wrote: > On 02/04/18 13:41, Martin Vaeth wrote: >> Bill Kenworthy wrote: >>> I use the palemoon overlay. >> There is also the octopus overlay. >> Anyway, both can only react to upstream. >> >>> builds fine with gcc-6.4 >> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5, >> and as somebody familiar with the code posted somewhere, >> the reasons are quite some assumptions in assembler code >> which should not have been made. (I simply repeated these >> claims without checking them.) >> >> Upstream knows about it and therefore officially does not > > Pretty stable for me - ymmv. Yes. I also used to compile it with gcc-6. It segfaulted only occassionally unless you visit "wrong" pages. But it is not the user experience why I mentioned this but the underlying problem these instabilities indicate. (And BTW, with gcc-7 I never succeeded to compile; I had patched some dozen problems, but eventually decided it is too much work.)