RE: LD_LIBRARY_PATH issue

2011-11-04 Thread Mahanteshwari Hiremath
Hi Thomas, I am building for another target(i have a x86 based board). Yes as you suggested i have done chroot, shellchroot /path/to/buildroot/output/target /bin/sh and able to use the new root file system of build root. but now the question is my toolchain binaries like

Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH issue

2011-11-04 Thread Thomas De Schampheleire
Hello, Please don't top-post. See http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php#toppost On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Mahanteshwari Hiremath mahanteshwari.hirem...@lnties.com wrote: [..] I see it is over riding my native toll commands. suggest me how can i safely set this LD_LIBRARY_PATH,

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

2011-11-04 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 3 November 2011 14:23, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com 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

Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add eventfd() in the UCLIBC_LINUX_SPECIFIC configuration help.

2011-11-04 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:43:59PM +0100, j...@eclis.ch wrote: From: Jean-Christian de Rivaz j...@eclis.ch Applied, thanks! ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc

Re: [PATCH 3/3] libm: implement a generic sincos().

2011-11-04 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 07:18:48PM -0500, William Pitcock wrote: We already provide sincos() on some archs, so we should ship a generic version. Applied, thanks! (IIRC you should potentially end up with the gcc builtin anyway, don't you?) ___ uClibc

FW: Problem with shared library

2011-11-04 Thread Naveen H. S
Hi, We are implementing uclibc port for CR16 target with shared library support. However, there was an issue observed during testing the port with shared library. The following link was referred to compile the applications with static and shared libraries:-

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

2011-11-04 Thread Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO carmelo.amor...@st.com wrote: 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

Problem with shared library

2011-11-04 Thread Naveen H. S
Hi, The original message attachment has been quarantined. Hence please find the attached command file ___ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc

Problem with shared library

2011-11-04 Thread Naveen H. S
Hi, The original message attachment has been quarantined. Hence please find the attached command file command.txt. Thanks Regards, Naveen rm -f test_shared_flat libmy_lib.a libmy_lib_so lib3.so *.elf *.o *.gdb cr16-uclinux-gcc -c -mint32 -mcr16cplus -mdata-model=far -O2 -mid-shared-library

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

2011-11-04 Thread Grant Edwards
On 2011-11-04, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: On 3 November 2011 14:23, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com 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

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

2011-11-04 Thread Carmelo AMOROSO
On 04/11/2011 13.50, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On 3 November 2011 09:31, Carmelo AMOROSO carmelo.amor...@st.com wrote: 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

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

2011-11-04 Thread Rich Felker
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 03:08:25AM +, Grant Edwards wrote: 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