there seems to be a bunch of changes that the associated changelog does not
seem to cover. so i don't know if they were changed on purpose, by accident,
etc...
commit a33796043bdef5345bc00a528c942f91a87af8e9
ldso: Add runtime prelink support
_dl_load_elf_shared_library(int secure,...)
...
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Grant Edwards
grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
We asked that the noreturn attribute be removed from abort() so that
core files contain sufficient info for getting a bactrace...
Why does uclibc need it removed, but glibc doesn't?
On 2011-11-27, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Wednesday 23 November 2011 18:39:50 Rich Felker wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:35:24PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
at this point, you're just wasting people's time. uClibc is not broken.
you're barking up the wrong tree.
This
On 2011-11-27, Rich Felker dal...@aerifal.cx wrote:
As far as I can tell, the issue is that the noreturn attribute causes
gcc to perform the function call by jumping to the first instruction
of the function without bothering to save anything that could be used
for returning/unwinding the
On 2011-11-27, Philip Craig philipjcr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Grant Edwards
grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
We asked that the noreturn attribute be removed from abort() so that
core files contain sufficient info for getting a bactrace...
Why does uclibc need it
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, Grant Edwards wrote:
Gcc has the same problem with abort() on ARM. See this thread:
It was fixed by:
2009-11-23 Paul Brook p...@codesourcery.com
* config/arm/arm.c (arm_compute_save_reg0_reg12_mask): Add special
case for noreturn functions.
On 2011-11-27, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, Grant Edwards wrote:
Gcc has the same problem with abort() on ARM. See this thread:
It was fixed by:
2009-11-23 Paul Brook p...@codesourcery.com
* config/arm/arm.c
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Saturday 26 November 2011 19:07:44 Khem Raj wrote:
If I build the root file system without this patch everything works
as expected. Could you explain why this commit is needed ?
it's a merge commit that happens when
