On Mit, 2011-08-31 at 07:35 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:26:10AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:05:04AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 06:35:09AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Interestingly, according to bug #639851, 6.0-2
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 08:39:05AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Mit, 2011-08-31 at 07:35 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:26:10AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:05:04AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 06:35:09AM +0200, Mike
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 06:48:49PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
Fast forward four months...
On Sam, 2011-04-30 at 20:04 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:00:41PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 02:17:15PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Thu, Apr
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 06:35:09AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Interestingly, according to bug #639851, 6.0-2 didn't have the problem.
Which suggests something else broke.
Actually, it must have worked by luck in 6.0-2 for that user, because
the binary is affected the same way.
So, it would be
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:05:04AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 06:35:09AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Interestingly, according to bug #639851, 6.0-2 didn't have the problem.
Which suggests something else broke.
Actually, it must have worked by luck in 6.0-2 for that
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:26:10AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 07:05:04AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 06:35:09AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Interestingly, according to bug #639851, 6.0-2 didn't have the problem.
Which suggests something else
Fast forward four months...
On Sam, 2011-04-30 at 20:04 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:00:41PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 02:17:15PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:10:54PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28,
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 12:00:41PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 02:17:15PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:10:54PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:04:42PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Let me write it again:
- The
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 12:10 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:04:42PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Let me write it again:
- The R_PPC_REL24 relocations are all over libxul.so on objects that are
built -fPIC.
- libcrmf.a is also linked into libxul.so, and it also contains
tag 624354 + help moreinfo
thanks
On 04/28/2011 07:47 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
reassign 624354 binutils
thanks
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:53:08PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
reassign 624354 xulrunner-1.9.1
thanks
too easy. please make sure that all objects involved in the link are
built with
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 09:53:58AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
tag 624354 + help moreinfo
thanks
On 04/28/2011 07:47 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
reassign 624354 binutils
thanks
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:53:08PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
reassign 624354 xulrunner-1.9.1
thanks
too
On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Take the build log, remove all lines without -fPIC, you'll only get
lines for building binaries and objects that aren't linked into
libxul.so. QED.
shows nothing at all, and in particular no reason for the reassignment.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Take the build log, remove all lines without -fPIC, you'll only get
lines for building binaries and objects that aren't linked into
libxul.so. QED.
shows nothing at all, and in
On 04/28/2011 10:06 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Take the build log, remove all lines without -fPIC, you'll only get
lines for building binaries and objects that aren't linked into
libxul.so.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:06:01AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Take the build log, remove all lines without -fPIC, you'll only get
lines for building binaries and objects that aren't
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:06:01AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Take the build log, remove all lines without -fPIC, you'll
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 10:45 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:06:01AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:00:09AM +0200,
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:25:06AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 10:45 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:06:01AM +0200, Mike
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:32:16AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
And none of the offsets match the end of the relocation address ld.so is
talking about.
Now, for something interesting, LD_DEBUG=all says this:
binding file ./libxul.so [0] to /usr/lib/libstartup-notification-1.so.0
[0]:
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 10:45 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:06:01AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/28/2011 09:57 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 11:25 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 10:45 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:06:01AM +0200, Mike Hommey
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:32:16AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
And none of the offsets match the end of the relocation address ld.so is
talking about.
Now, for something interesting, LD_DEBUG=all says this:
binding file
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:43:12AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 11:25 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:17:34AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 10:45 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:15:00AM +0200, Mike
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:32:16AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
And none of the offsets match the end of the relocation address ld.so is
talking about.
Now, for
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:01:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:32:16AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
And none of the offsets match the end of the
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:04:42PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Let me write it again:
- The R_PPC_REL24 relocations are all over libxul.so on objects that are
built -fPIC.
- libcrmf.a is also linked into libxul.so, and it also contains
R_PPC_REL24 relocations, but all the objects it contains
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 12:04 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:01:04PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Don, 2011-04-28 at 11:55 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:32:16AM +0200, Mike Hommey
reassign 624354 gcc-4.5
thanks
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:14:41PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:10:54PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:04:42PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Let me write it again:
- The R_PPC_REL24 relocations are all over
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:10:38PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
I asked about linking static libraries into shared objects because that
*cannot work* in general. If there are still other R_PPC_REL24
relocations in libxul.so after you've fixed that, please provide more
details about those.
Let
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:16:46PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
reassign 624354 gcc-4.5
thanks
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:14:41PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:10:54PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:04:42PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Let me
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:10:54PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:04:42PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
Let me write it again:
- The R_PPC_REL24 relocations are all over libxul.so on objects that are
built -fPIC.
- libcrmf.a is also linked into libxul.so, and it also
reassign 624354 xulrunner-1.9.1
thanks
too easy. please make sure that all objects involved in the link are built with
-fPIC.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
reassign 624354 binutils
thanks
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 09:53:08PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
reassign 624354 xulrunner-1.9.1
thanks
too easy. please make sure that all objects involved in the link are
built with -fPIC.
They are. Thank you
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
33 matches
Mail list logo
