[PATCH] libc: do not rely upon ulimit kernel syscall.

2011-11-03 Thread Carmelo AMOROSO
On several architectures __NR_ulimit syscall number is currently defined but it is remapped onto sys_ni_syscall, while on other architectures they are not longer defined. So use {get,set}rlimit only to implement ulimit interface. It fixes LTP ulimit01 test case. Signed-off-by: Carmelo Amoroso

Re: [Buildroot] Status of valgrind on powerpc

2011-11-03 Thread Thomas De Schampheleire
Hi, On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire patrickdepinguin+buildr...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Thomas, On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Thomas Petazzoni thomas.petazz...@free-electrons.com wrote: Le Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:12:52 +0200, Thomas De Schampheleire

abort() missing return-address = useless core file

2011-11-03 Thread Grant Edwards
It appears that the abort() function somehow breaks the resulting corefile so that you can't do a post-mortem backtrace. I suspect that gcc has figured out that the abort() function never returns, so it doesn't push a return address onto the stack. I've managed to work around the problem by

Re: abort() missing return-address = useless core file

2011-11-03 Thread Rich Felker
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 01:23:30PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: It appears that the abort() function somehow breaks the resulting corefile so that you can't do a post-mortem backtrace. I suspect that gcc has figured out that the abort() function never returns, so it doesn't push a return

Re: abort() missing return-address = useless core file

2011-11-03 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2011-11-04, Rich Felker dal...@aerifal.cx wrote: On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 01:23:30PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: It appears that the abort() function somehow breaks the resulting corefile so that you can't do a post-mortem backtrace. I suspect that gcc has figured out that the abort()