RE: Segfault in re_string_reconstruct()

2008-11-04 Thread Arnar Mar Sigurðsson
-Original Message- From: Peter Korsgaard on behalf of Peter Korsgaard Sent: Tue 11/4/2008 3:38 PM To: Arnar Mar Sigurðsson Cc: Hans-Christian Egtvedt; uclibc@uclibc.org Subject: Re: Segfault in re_string_reconstruct() Arnar == Arnar Mar Sigurðsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi,

Re: [RFC] Fix various compiler warning

2008-11-04 Thread Carmelo AMOROSO
Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:35:47 -0500 Rob Landley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [SNIP] There are more defines to be cleaned up I think, places where #if is used when I think it should really have been #ifdef. It depends on how this is used. In a simple case just

Re: Segfault in re_string_reconstruct()

2008-11-04 Thread Hans-Christian Egtvedt
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:53:39 +0100 Peter Korsgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hans-Christian == Hans-Christian Egtvedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hans-Christian It works with the toolchain built by the AVR32 fork() Hans-Christian of Buildroot. My preferred way is to get the

Re: Segfault in re_string_reconstruct()

2008-11-04 Thread Hans-Christian Egtvedt
Rob Landley wrote: On Tuesday 04 November 2008 05:28:10 Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: So this probably means that we should mark avr32 as broken in the uclibc.org buildroot for now? The best would be if somebody using the toolchain supplied in uclibc.org Buildroot could sort out if all

Re: Segfault in re_string_reconstruct()

2008-11-04 Thread Rob Landley
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 06:21:53 Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: On the good side we have qemu in the thoughts, since there will be a need for a simulator to get the toolchain upstream. Qemu would be a natural choice. Let me know when it all goes in and I'll add it as a Firmware Linux

Re: Segfault in re_string_reconstruct()

2008-11-04 Thread Rob Landley
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 05:28:10 Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: So this probably means that we should mark avr32 as broken in the uclibc.org buildroot for now? The best would be if somebody using the toolchain supplied in uclibc.org Buildroot could sort out if all patches are included in

Re: Standards compliance?

2008-11-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Rob Landley wrote: What's the uClibc position on SUSv3? Has anybody checked http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/idx/head.html to see what lines up and what's optional? there's a doc and everything: docs/uClibc_vs_SuSv3.txt -mike

Re: Standards compliance?

2008-11-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Rob Landley wrote: On Tuesday 04 November 2008 16:58:50 Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Rob Landley wrote: What's the uClibc position on SUSv3? Has anybody checked http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/idx/head.html to see what