Re: libunwind in unstable

2004-11-23 Thread Matthias Klose
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

Re: libunwind in unstable

2004-11-23 Thread David Mosberger
> 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

Re: libunwind in unstable

2004-11-23 Thread Matthias Klose
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

Bug#219352: Simple test case for xmms/nvidia/TLS bug

2004-11-23 Thread Peter Hawkins
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

Bug#219352: Simple test case for xmms/nvidia/TLS bug

2004-11-23 Thread Matt Zimmerman
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

Re: libunwind in unstable

2004-11-23 Thread David Mosberger
> 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

File was infected with a virus

2004-11-23 Thread KDDI-INFO
(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!#(

Re: libunwind in unstable

2004-11-23 Thread Matthias Klose
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