On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 00:39 +0100, Mirco Bauer wrote: > So we are back to, it never failed to build on cats, but always did on > netwinder.
Mm, strange. I tried to build it by hand on smackdown and it failed again there: Creating ../../build/deps/net_2_0_corlib.dll.makefrag ... make[8]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/mono-1.1.18/mcs/class/corlib' make[8]: Entering directory `/var/tmp/mono-1.1.18/mcs/class/corlib' /usr/bin/make all-local make[9]: Entering directory `/var/tmp/mono-1.1.18/mcs/class/corlib' MONO_PATH="../../class/lib/net_2_0_bootstrap: $MONO_PATH" /var/tmp/mono-1.1.18/runtime/mono-wrapper ../../gmcs/gmcs.exe /codepage:65001 -nowarn:169,612,618,649 -d:INSIDE_CORLIB -nowarn:414 -d:NET_1_1 -d:NET_2_0 -debug /noconfig -unsafe -nostdlib -resource:resources/collation.core.bin -resource:resources/collation.tailoring.bin -resource:resources/collation.cjkCHS.bin -resource:resources/collation.cjkCHT.bin -resource:resources/collation.cjkJA.bin -resource:resources/collation.cjkKO.bin -resource:resources/collation.cjkKOlv2.bin -target:library -out:mscorlib.dll @corlib.dll.sources ================================================================= Got a SIGSEGV while executing native code. This usually indicates a fatal error in the mono runtime or one of the native libraries used by your application. ================================================================= mono: unhandled page fault at pc=0x0012e448, lr=0x000dc204 (bad address=0x00000084, code 0) pc : [<0012e448>] lr : [<000dc204>] Not tainted sp : bf5ff69c ip : bf5ff670 fp : bf5ff6cc r10: 4011c000 r9 : bf5ff778 r8 : bf5ff6f8 r7 : 00000024 r6 : 00000000 r5 : bf5ff6d0 r4 : bf5ffbe0 r3 : 00000000 r2 : 4011cca0 r1 : 00000000 r0 : 00000000 Flags: nZCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode USER_32 Segment user Control: 3CBD17F Table: 03CBD17F DAC: 00000015 0012e414 <sigusr1_signal_handler>: 12e414: e1a0c00d mov ip, sp 12e418: e92dd810 stmdb sp!, {r4, fp, ip, lr, pc} 12e41c: e24cb004 sub fp, ip, #4 ; 0x4 12e420: e24dd020 sub sp, sp, #32 ; 0x20 12e424: e50b0028 str r0, [fp, #-40] 12e428: e50b102c str r1, [fp, #-44] 12e42c: e50b2030 str r2, [fp, #-48] 12e430: ebfd81aa bl 8eae0 <mono_thread_current> 12e434: e1a03000 mov r3, r0 12e438: e50b301c str r3, [fp, #-28] 12e43c: e51b3030 ldr r3, [fp, #-48] 12e440: e50b3014 str r3, [fp, #-20] 12e444: e51b301c ldr r3, [fp, #-28] 12e448: e5d33084 ldrb r3, [r3, #132] 12e44c: e3530000 cmp r3, #0 ; 0x0 At a first glance this looks more like a TLS emulation kind of problem than an instruction set discrepancy. But it'd take a bit more detective work to figure out what's really going wrong, and I guess there is no guarantee that this is the same problem the netwinders are seeing in any case. p. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]