David Mosberger writes:
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:26:01 +0100, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
>
> Matthias> From my point of view we can get around with it by
> Matthias> including the libunwind shared library in libgcc1 for the
> Matthias> sarge release. I'm worried
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:26:01 +0100, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Matthias> From my point of view we can get around with it by
Matthias> including the libunwind shared library in libgcc1 for the
Matthias> sarge release. I'm worried about the version skew of the
Matt
David Mosberger writes:
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:27:52 +0100, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > said:
>
> Matthias> Is the patch in #278836 a prerequisite for the above
> Matthias> changes, or can it be done without it?
>
> If the gas-patch isn't applied, you run the risk of g
Hi...
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:59 am, you wrote:
> True, the error message is not ideal, but if I understand your test case
> correctly, this only happens when there would have been unresolved symbols
> anyway. So surely there is another bug here, no?
Quote from dlopen(3):
If dlopen() fails
True, the error message is not ideal, but if I understand your test case
correctly, this only happens when there would have been unresolved symbols
anyway. So surely there is another bug here, no?
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:27:52 +0100, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
Matthias> Is the patch in #278836 a prerequisite for the above
Matthias> changes, or can it be done without it?
If the gas-patch isn't applied, you run the risk of getting wrong
unwind-info into object-f
(BNote: JP stands for Japanese.
(B
(BALERT!!
(BThis e-mail contained one or more virus-infected files and have been rejected.
(B(JP:$B%3%s%T%e!<%?%&%#%k%9$rH/8+$7$^$7$?$N$G!"%a!<%k$NAw?.$rCf;_$7$^$7$?!#(J)
(B
(BThe following attachments were infected:
(B(JP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<$N$H$*$j!#(
Ian Wienand writes:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:30:38PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> > That would make sense. libstdc++5 calls _Unwind_Resume() which
> > is/should be implemented by libunwind.so.7. With older versions of
> > GCC, it was implemented as part of libgcc_eh.a/libgcc_s.so.
>
> Act
8 matches
Mail list logo