loader: Add --compile-info option to Wine.

[Scott Ritchie]

Jesse Allen wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 12:20 PM, Peter Beutner <p.beutner at gmx.net> wrote:
>> John Klehm schrieb:
>>> On Dec 18, 2007 9:43 AM, Peter Beutner <p.beutner at gmx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I recall this is not the only version that causes problems. Plus certain compiler
>>>> flags have an influence as well. And as most distros ship gcc with a bunch
>>>> of patches you probably can't even rely on the gcc version alone.
>>>>
>>>> Imo it would be better to collect the info on a wiki page.
>>>>
>>> Like this one?  http://wiki.winehq.org/GccVersions
>> ah, nice. didn't know about that one.
>>
>>> Nothing wrong with having the info output reflect the knowledge
>>> gathered on the wiki page.
>> So let's add to that info that gcc 4.2.2 (on gentoo) doesn't work.
>> As well as recent 4.3-snapshots. (At least that was the status a few
>> releases back, haven't tested in a while.)
>> But they did work if you compile with -fstack-protector. And some
>> distros(I think Ubuntu for example) patch gcc to use that flag by default.
>> And at least with gcc-4.2.2 it was always very close at the line
>> between working and non-working. Just a few changes in gdi/kernel/user
>> could make a difference. So it might even vary between single wine releases.
>>
>> You want to put and more importantly maintain all those details in the
>> src code?
>>
>> I don't think that this is such a great idea. But hey, that's just my
>> opinion.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  It's good that we have a wiki for this now. While that page
> seems to be focused on SafeDisc, I have long known that gcc 4.0.x
> breaks SecuRom. Should we differentiate the two? Maybe not. Since we
> have a wiki up, I will probably link to it from my appdb pages now. If
> there is anything we can do to identify which distros have broken
> gcc's for copy protection we need to do it. These days I still get
> people complaining their disc doesn't work and I have no clue what's
> wrong as I have not seen a regression in years (this is older
> SecuRom), and they do have what I consider to be a working version of
> gcc. Sounds like a we're getting into packaging/flags stuff. I don't
> even want to go there.
> 
> 

Ugh....this means that 4.2 for Ubuntu might NOT actually work, and that
this is why System Shock 2 has been crashing at startup for me.

I'm gonna try building with 3.4 and see if that fixes anything

Thanks,
Scott Ritchie