Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

2009/7/30 Joseph D. Darcy : > Martin Buchholz wrote: >> >> Joe, thanks for the review. >> > > Thanks for the fixes :-) > > -Joe > >> I've pushed fixes for this problem to openjdk6 and openjdk7/tl >> >> Martin >> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 21:22, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: >> >>> >>> Martin Buchholz wro

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

Martin Buchholz wrote: Joe, thanks for the review. Thanks for the fixes :-) -Joe I've pushed fixes for this problem to openjdk6 and openjdk7/tl Martin On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 21:22, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: Martin Buchholz wrote: Of course, it's all my fault. First, for having u

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

Joe, thanks for the review. I've pushed fixes for this problem to openjdk6 and openjdk7/tl Martin On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 21:22, Joseph D. Darcy wrote: > Martin Buchholz wrote: >> >> Of course, it's all my fault. >> First, for having used a symbol that libc implementers are likely to add. >> Sec

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

Martin Buchholz wrote: Of course, it's all my fault. First, for having used a symbol that libc implementers are likely to add. Second, for actually asking glibc implementers to add that very symbol. Third, for forgetting that this is an issue in openjdk6 as well. Anyways, I intend to commit thes

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

Of course, it's all my fault. First, for having used a symbol that libc implementers are likely to add. Second, for actually asking glibc implementers to add that very symbol. Third, for forgetting that this is an issue in openjdk6 as well. Anyways, I intend to commit these patches to their respec

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

2009/7/28 Martin Buchholz : > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 06:08, Michael McMahon wrote: >> Andrew John Hughes wrote: >>> >>> 2009/7/28 Michael McMahon : >>> Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > 2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz : > > >>> >>> rename-execvpe is the one I'm particularl

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 06:08, Michael McMahon wrote: > Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> >> 2009/7/28 Michael McMahon : >> >>> >>> Andrew John Hughes wrote: >>> 2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz : >>> >> >> rename-execvpe is the one I'm particularly concerned about.  It's a >> trivial patch,

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

Andrew John Hughes wrote: 2009/7/28 Michael McMahon : Andrew John Hughes wrote: 2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz : rename-execvpe is the one I'm particularly concerned about. It's a trivial patch, but without it, OpenJDK builds are going to start failing as distros move to the new

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

2009/7/28 Michael McMahon : > Andrew John Hughes wrote: >> >> 2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz : >> >>> >>> Sorry, I should never have named a function (not even a static one) >>> 'execvpe'.  It's amusing that I broke myself by requesting that glibc >>> implement 'execvpe'. >>> >>> Here's the webrev: >>> >

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

Andrew John Hughes wrote: 2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz : Sorry, I should never have named a function (not even a static one) 'execvpe'. It's amusing that I broke myself by requesting that glibc implement 'execvpe'. Here's the webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/rename-e

Re: execvpe and glibc 2.10

2009/7/9 Martin Buchholz : > Sorry, I should never have named a function (not even a static one) > 'execvpe'.  It's amusing that I broke myself by requesting that glibc > implement 'execvpe'. > > Here's the webrev: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/rename-execvpe/ > > For thos

execvpe and glibc 2.10

Sorry, I should never have named a function (not even a static one) 'execvpe'. It's amusing that I broke myself by requesting that glibc implement 'execvpe'. Here's the webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/rename-execvpe/ For those following things, there are now 3 pendin