On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:57:49PM +0100, Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
> On 1/3/07, James Stone <jamesmstone@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:58:43PM +0100, Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
> >> On 1/2/07, Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Talking about reverbs and convolution, I gave a try to jack-convolve.
> >> >> It seems it does not compile with gcc 4.1.0.... asm problem (even with
> >> >> the latest stable).
> >> >>
> >> >> Does someone knows of a patch to fix this ?
> >> >
> >> >It builds fine here with gcc 4.1.2. jack_convolve only uses ASM through
> >> >libconvolve which can be built using libDSP (which in turn contains some
> >> >ASM
> >> >code)..
> >> >
> >> >Let us see the whole error messages maybe?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Right... I was too fast writing this post :-)
> >>
> >> It is libDSP which contains some assembly code that doesn't seem to
> >> compile well with my gcc. I have used the latest stable (5.0.2) which
> >> (according to the changelog) contains "Support for gcc-4.x".
> >>
> >
> >Just build it with gcc-3.4.
> >
>
> I don't have it on my system and I don't intend to set it up unless I
> have a real problem. The fact is, my system is a modified LFS,
> composed of more than 500 packages that ALL compiled fine with gcc
> 4.1.0 (only a few of them required a patch to compile properly).
>
> Actually, all the packages I have seen in the past few months that had
> a problem with gcc 4.x just called it a bug and fixed it or (as is the
> case with linuxsampler's assembly routines) decided to adapt their
> software to take advantage of gcc 4.x new optimization stuff....
>
> Why shall I install gcc 3.4 instead of reporting what a majority of
> people call a bug ?
Yes. It's a bug.. the gcc-3.4 thing will just get you up and
going if that is your aim. Report the bug upstream.
James
Received on Wed Jan 3 20:15:02 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 20:15:02 EET