On Sun, 2 Mar 2014, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
The test would be to run one of the affected program under gdb, add a
breakpoint on __nptl_setxid, and understand why the memory access fail.
With gdb attached, the crash does not happen. I've got some more things
to try though.
I have access to a couple of these boards. I'll be glad to run some tests if
needed.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson ander...@netsweng.com
Network & Software Engineering http://www.netsweng.com/
1024D/37A79149:
A fix for the binutils problem which is worked around in the patches submitted
to these bugs can be found in #363423.
Stuart
Stuart R. Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network & Software Engineering http://www.netsweng.c
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Yes that's is wanted. You have to install the resulting binaries with
--force-depends until gcc is rebuilt. I am working on a patch for it, but
that's a bit more complex.
I bet it is more complex. My original patch used the non-'n' names since
the pac
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Stuart Anderson wrote:
I would be very nice. The new glibc source packages are on:
http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/mips-triarch/glibc/
My LE build finished. It was quicker, but still took several hours.
The build went smoothly, but when I went to install the packages
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
I would be very nice. The new glibc source packages are on:
http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/mips-triarch/glibc/
I'll give it a try on mipsel.
BTW, will you use the new 1480 board? The glibc uses as much as processors as
available using make -j.
C
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Please note also that I used a modified version of this patch (mainly
because the glibc has changed since you reported the bug) to bootstrap
32-bit and 64-bit glibc/gcc/zlib on mips.
I am glad to hear that you were successful!
You can find all the co
nt) (revision 144)
+++ debian/changelog(.../src/glibc) (revision 144)
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+glibc (2.3.5-8.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Enable mips multilib support
+
+ -- Stuart Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:00:47 -0600
+
glibc (2.3.5-
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Why is your bash statically linked? I have the same version you report,
> and mine is not.
Hmm.. I have no idea. I don't recall having done anything that would explain
this. It would, however, explain why others aren't seeing such a catastrophic
failure
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Why is your bash statically linked? I have the same version you report,
> and mine is not.
Hmm.. I have no idea. I don't recall having done anything that would explain
this. It would, however, explain why others aren't seeing such a catastrophic
failure
I upgraded this morning, and rendered my system unusable. 8-( but managed to
dig around a little bit before recoving the system.
I got libc6 2.3.1-3 as part of the upgrade. The biggest problem seems to be
that bash is statically linked, and all of the NSS related issues have not
been resolved. Wi
I upgraded this morning, and rendered my system unusable. 8-( but managed to
dig around a little bit before recoving the system.
I got libc6 2.3.1-3 as part of the upgrade. The biggest problem seems to be
that bash is statically linked, and all of the NSS related issues have not
been resolved. Wi
12 matches
Mail list logo
