-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/05/11 08:15, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> I the case of the current x86 breakage, the only problem I've been aware >> of was an internal report from bkoz that bootstrap was breaking on >> x86_64 (with no other details). Meanwhile my bootstraps were running >> fine. It wasn't until HJ's autotester reported the key >> "--disable-checking" configury bits that we were able to confirm a >> problem and start the real process of diagnosing what went wrong. > > No, this isn't what happened, see the audit trail of PR48403. This was a big > breakage. --disable-checking had nothing to do with the problem either. - --disable-checking is the trigger for the bootstrap comparison failures I'm tracking right now. These may be separate from 48403. Which highlights the problem of reverting without doing an in-depth analysis of the problem.
Jeff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNmyTyAAoJEBRtltQi2kC79qIH/0+i+oE5gPYMvPmxuhNnVuAE VIedv6UiVStBIxm/bCyaVDZHdiPnldEEoKfANe7UT8WmEXD/iRNYJ3ZBG7JU8Qk6 9Ahq8pSYaYsyRO2BJgiH2WIXJxz9qvH4BDYmxWUmJ+h80q0qnKlCrcZsgSqW4IIy xwHa/ePXnXNmpuuRPpQFpv0pQgco4G7xDCUwn1UXZdkKCJulzHUwLcB1WP/urR/i HPuLfbzyD62ZpI2NKfiCJAm5xOh/2RJYqs9XTKGg5qsBlOf/BQ2yERTSjWiLykF/ FgDbxydIcSJv7nUbcwNH6rrII1WFTCg4JRS8/RPSS8jtwkxTAVyEJhopncUDLl4= =EzTa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
