At Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:41:46 +0000, Richard Mortimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 19:27, Ron Murray wrote: > > At Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:45:59 -0500, > > Ron Murray wrote: > > We have a minor problem. Richard's patch seems to refer to a > > pristine xfree86-4.3.0 source. > > Damn! There are two similar #if defined lines. I made the patch against > the wrong one! > > I also accept that I did make the patch against pristine sources - > although in this case it means that you spotted my mistake. > > I still stand by my analysis. Hopefully the new patch (below) will work. > Note I've taken the same approach as the one that my original patch > clashed with. Basically I've removed the check for ia64 because I'm > assuming that the non-executable issue could in future apply to all > linux versions. > > Richard
Yep, I agree that you've probably found the problem. After I wrote my previous post, I did some poking around with gdb on the XFree86 executable. I found a sequence of bytes that looked a lot like the ones you posted earlier, a little further on than you had (but my current copy of XFree86 has lots of debugging code inbuilt). They even had a call to malloc() in the middle of them. gdb claimed that the code was in the middle of ELFLoadModule(), so I looked, and there it was, complete with the same #ifdef you found earlier. I set up the patch, started the build, and went home. With any luck, I'll have a new (and hopefully functional) set of X packages when I get to work in the morning. Only difference was that I didn't turn it on for all Linux, just for ia86 and sparc. Wasn't sure whether it was a good idea or not. I'll let everyone know how it went. Thanks for finding it. .....Ron -- Ron Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.rjmx.net/~ron GPG Public Key Fingerprint: F2C1 FC47 5EF7 0317 133C D66B 8ADA A3C4 D86C 74DE