Re: Toolchain TLS support

2006-09-05 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
glibc 2.4 is completely unusable for GNU/Hurd at the moment, Not true. It might be true for Debian GNU/Hurd though. Also, a GCC 4.1-build glibc doesn't work correctly: it already fails during the building process, as soon as the newly created libc.so is being used (might also be

Re: Toolchain TLS support

2006-09-05 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
As I said, these patches will become avaiable with time. But as such, both GCC and GLIBC work fine on GNU; you are of course free to inisist on otherwise if that makes you happy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Toolchain TLS support

2006-09-05 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
As I said, these patches will become avaiable with time. But as such, both GCC and GLIBC work fine on GNU; you are of course free to inisist on otherwise if that makes you happy. By as such, do you mean upstream glibc 2.4 release and gcc 4.1, or your patched versions? That is

Re: Toolchain TLS support

2006-09-05 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
glibc hasn't worked out of the box for atleast a year since malloc/memusage.c uses __thread without #if's. Ok so glibc 2.4 as such doesn't work (that was the original question). glibc since 2.3 hasn't worked out of the box, either CVS or otherwise. Nor will the malloc/memusage.c

Bug#79358: is select still broken on hurd ?

2003-01-29 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
Is select() still broken on hurd ? Try the quoted program and you will know. And if you do try it, tell us! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libexec in glibc

2002-10-13 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: 1) What gets added to the FHS is not a Debian decision, 2) Debian released architectures need to conform to FHS, and 3) Ports still being

Re: libexec in glibc

2002-10-12 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
objections? Didn't we come to a conclusion that the addition of /libexec was not an violation to the FHS? Or at least that the FHS was vague on the topic of adding new top level directories by distributions. Cheers, -- Alfred M. Szmidt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: libexec in glibc

2002-10-12 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
in relevant ways before the port is released. If top-level directories are allowed to be added by the people that make a distribution then the whole discussion is quite irrelevant. I will ask about this on the FHS lists.. Cheers, -- Alfred M. Szmidt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: libexec in glibc

2002-10-12 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
objections? Didn't we come to a conclusion that the addition of /libexec was not an violation to the FHS? Or at least that the FHS was vague on the topic of adding new top level directories by distributions. Cheers, -- Alfred M. Szmidt