thanks Chris,
so Bug#204615 and Bug#205548 have a similar backtrace
openoffice.org
==
205548
==
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
#0 0x7006157c in bfd_elf64_archive_write_armap () from /usr/lib/libbfd-
2.14.90.0.5.so
#1 0x7006c9b4 in bfd_elf32_bfd_final_link () from /
[ Disclaimer: I supposedly have CVS access, last I was told, and I]
[ certainly do most of the work to ensure that GCC will work on the ]
[ proto-port to NetBSD; apart from that, and reading both debian-gcc ]
[ and debian-legal, you probably have to ask Matthias Klose for a final
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 09:44:55AM +1000, Jim Watson wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 03:59, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > ld is not stripped, so you could get a stacktrace.
>
> sorry but i will need someone to tell me how to do this.
> I can change the makefiles and I know how i can copy this command li
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Aug 31 06:55:26 UTC 2003
Native configuration is s390-ibm-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/tls/init-2.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Aug 31 06:55:26 UTC 2003
Native configuration is sparc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes8042
# of unexpected successes 1
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libstdc++-v3 tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution test
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_byname.cc execution test
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_members_char.cc execution test
XPASS: 22_locale
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Aug 31 06:55:26 UTC 2003
Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.dg/other/packed1.C execution test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: g++.brendan/crash46.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.other/init5
Steve Langasek wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg7.html):
>Does this mean that the gcc maintainers don't agree with this list's
>interpretation of the GFDL, or that they don't regard this as a high
>priority between now and the release?
I believe that
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:01:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> > klecker:~$ readelf --syms /lib/libc.so.5|grep getnetent
> >309: 00019208 322 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT8 getnetent
> > klecker:~$ readelf --relocs /lib/
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 12:01:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> klecker:~$ readelf --syms /lib/libc.so.5|grep getnetent
>309: 00019208 322 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT8 getnetent
> klecker:~$ readelf --relocs /lib/libc.so.5|grep getnetent
>0008864c 00013507 R_386_JUMP_SLOT 000
Uhm here I can see:
klecker:~$ readelf --syms /lib/libc.so.5|grep getnetent
309: 00019208 322 FUNCGLOBAL DEFAULT8 getnetent
klecker:~$ readelf --relocs /lib/libc.so.5|grep getnetent
0008864c 00013507 R_386_JUMP_SLOT 00019208 getnetent
And I can see at that address:
1920
11 matches
Mail list logo
