From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#48446: 28.0.50; Native compile failure during bootstrap Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 08:31:56 +0300 Message-ID: <83v97jutv7.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87tun4osqg.fsf@md5i.com> <83im3jx6gj.fsf@gnu.org> <83fsynx435.fsf@gnu.org> <87tun3tfqf.fsf@md5i.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25248"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, 48446@debbugs.gnu.org, akrl@sdf.org To: Michael Welsh Duggan Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 16 07:33:37 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1li9PD-0006MC-Ox for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 16 May 2021 07:33:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58832 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1li9PC-0000cc-Pt for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 16 May 2021 01:33:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36974) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1li9Og-0000ZF-1E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2021 01:33:02 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38018) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1li9Of-0006WV-Oy for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2021 01:33:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1li9Of-0005Yv-LQ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2021 01:33:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 05:33:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48446 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 48446-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48446.162114312321318 (code B ref 48446); Sun, 16 May 2021 05:33:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 48446) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 May 2021 05:32:03 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49564 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1li9Nj-0005Xm-FX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2021 01:32:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43178) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1li9Ni-0005XI-Gf for 48446@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 16 May 2021 01:32:02 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41200) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1li9Nc-0005ru-KW; Sun, 16 May 2021 01:31:56 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3180 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1li9Nb-0006My-Jw; Sun, 16 May 2021 01:31:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87tun3tfqf.fsf@md5i.com> (message from Michael Welsh Duggan on Sun, 16 May 2021 01:22:32 -0400) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:206634 Archived-At: > From: Michael Welsh Duggan > Cc: mwd@md5i.com, akrl@sdf.org, acm@muc.de, 48446@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 01:22:32 -0400 > > > I think I succeeded to fix this now, but I'd still like to know > > why the original code was wrong and how to avoid that in the future. > > Your further questions are surely worth getting answered, but I can > attest that your patch solves this problem for me. Thank you! Thanks for testing.