>> thanks for the report. >> Interestingly this was not reported by gcc-4.2.3 while test-building the >> package here: > > Built on amd64, I assume?
yes. > >> 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/workspace/debian/viking$ grep 'implicit' >> 0.9.3-build.log >> viktrwlayer.c-implicit-decl-fix not applied to ./ . >> dems.c-implicit-decl-fix not applied to ./ . >> applying patch dems.c-implicit-decl-fix to ./ ... ok. >> applying patch viktrwlayer.c-implicit-decl-fix to ./ ... ok. >> 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/workspace/debian/viking$ > >> I don't have a pbuilder log anymore, though. >> Two other implicit declarations were in there before, but the one which >> is shown in the buildd's logs didn't appear. >> >> So out of curiosity: Which gcc version is installed on the buildd? > > You can see the versions of the toolchain here: > > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=viking&ver=0.9.3-1&arch=amd64&stamp=1193080142&file=log I blame it on midnight that I missed that line when I looked trough the log. >>> Our automated buildd log filter[1] detected a problem that is likely to >>> cause your package to segfault on architectures where the size of a >>> pointer is greater than the size of an integer, such as ia64 and amd64. >> Didn't manage to segfault it on amd64 at least. > > This issue is often masked on amd64 because the top half of the > address usually happens to be 0's. So, truncating it then 0-padding it > results in the correct address. This isn't true on ia64, and I'm not > sure about alpha these days. Thanks for the info, good to know. -- Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bzed.de/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
