From owner-freebsd-gecko@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 18 13:25:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gecko@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB9B106566B; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:25:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D37B68FC08; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id QAA06948; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:21 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1OwxPt-000D57-BH; Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:21 +0300 Message-ID: <4C94BDC0.2030404@icyb.net.ua> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:20 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100912 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Beat Gaetzi References: <4C8DD187.2070309@icyb.net.ua> <4C946951.2000801@icyb.net.ua> <4C94A8E3.6080401@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4C94A8E3.6080401@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gecko@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: thunderbird and gcc44 (again) X-BeenThere: freebsd-gecko@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Gecko Rendering Engine issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:25:24 -0000 on 18/09/2010 14:56 Beat Gaetzi said the following: > Hi, > > On 18.09.2010 09:25, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> >> [ping] >> >> on 13/09/2010 10:23 Andriy Gapon said the following: >>> >>> Big thanks to all who made it possible for gecko ports to be buildable with >>> gcc44+ almost without any issues! >>> >>> About 'almost' - it seems that thunderbird port still requires one small patch, >>> which is needed for dlopen(3) definition. The patch should be an effective NOP >>> for base gcc. > > Do you know if your gcc patch will be included in the gcc port? I run > several tests with Thunderbird and your patches and it looks good. I hope for that, but haven't got any confirmation yet. -- Andriy Gapon