On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 07:55:10PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:35:43PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > >
> > Can you try attached two patches please?
>
> I built a new toolchain with these patches applied on
> top of current git (219aa9c), and built a
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:35:43PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> >
> Can you try attached two patches please?
I built a new toolchain with these patches applied on
top of current git (219aa9c), and built a statically
linked iperf with it. That worked fine.
I'll let you know tomorrow if
On Jan 27, 2012 5:02 PM, "Carmelo AMOROSO" wrote:
>
> On 27/01/2012 16.54, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 2012 4:47 PM, "Carmelo AMOROSO"
wrote:
> >
> >> So, to summarise I'd expect
> >>
> >> libc.{so,a}
> >>---> __libc_sigaction (global)
> >>---> __GI_sigaction (hidden al
On 27/01/2012 16.54, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2012 4:47 PM, "Carmelo AMOROSO" wrote:
>
>> So, to summarise I'd expect
>>
>> libc.{so,a}
>>---> __libc_sigaction (global)
>>---> __GI_sigaction (hidden alias for internal use)
>>---> sigaction
>> a. A wrapper t
On Jan 27, 2012 4:47 PM, "Carmelo AMOROSO" wrote:
> So, to summarise I'd expect
>
> libc.{so,a}
>---> __libc_sigaction (global)
>---> __GI_sigaction (hidden alias for internal use)
>---> sigaction
> a. A wrapper to __libc_sigaction (if NPTL configured)
> b. A weak alia
On 27/01/2012 14.17, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> On 27/01/2012 12.13, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>> On 26/01/2012 17.08, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:38:57AM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
On 16/12/2011 18.36, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 05:59:
On 27/01/2012 15.55, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>> Well,
>> what I'd expect to have for sigaction is:
>>
>> libc.{so,a}
>> ---> __libc_sigaction (global)
>> ---> sigaction (weak alias of __libc_sigaction)
>> ---> __GI_si
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 02:17:25PM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> Well,
> what I'd expect to have for sigaction is:
>
> libc.{so,a}
> ---> __libc_sigaction (global)
> ---> sigaction (weak alias of __libc_sigaction)
> ---> __GI_sigaction (hidden alias for internal use, if any)
>
> and
On 27/01/2012 12.13, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> On 26/01/2012 17.08, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:38:57AM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2011 18.36, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 05:59:16PM +0100, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> On 16/12/
On 26/01/2012 17.08, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:38:57AM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
>> On 16/12/2011 18.36, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 05:59:16PM +0100, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
On 16/12/11 15:57, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> I was a
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:38:57AM +0100, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> On 16/12/2011 18.36, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 05:59:16PM +0100, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> >> On 16/12/11 15:57, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> >>> I was able to fix the issue like this:
> >>>
> >>> --- uCl
On 16/12/2011 18.36, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 05:59:16PM +0100, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
>> On 16/12/11 15:57, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>>> I was able to fix the issue like this:
>>>
>>> --- uClibc-0.9.33/libpthread/nptl/sysdeps/pthread/sigaction.c.orig
>>> 2011-12-03
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 06:36:35PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 05:59:16PM +0100, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> > On 16/12/11 15:57, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > > I was able to fix the issue like this:
> > >
> > > --- uClibc-0.9.33/libpthread/nptl/sysdeps/pthread/s
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 05:59:16PM +0100, Carmelo Amoroso wrote:
> On 16/12/11 15:57, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > I was able to fix the issue like this:
> >
> > --- uClibc-0.9.33/libpthread/nptl/sysdeps/pthread/sigaction.c.orig
> > 2011-12-03 18:55:45.0 +0100
> > +++ uClibc-0.9.33/libp
On 16/12/11 15:57, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:51:35PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 2011 6:43 PM, "Johannes Stezenbach" wrote:
I'm in the process of building a toolchai
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:51:35PM +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2011 6:43 PM, "Johannes Stezenbach" wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm in the process of building a toolchain with crosstool-ng,
> > > with uClibc-0.9
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2011 6:43 PM, "Johannes Stezenbach" wrote:
> >
> > I'm in the process of building a toolchain with crosstool-ng,
> > with uClibc-0.9.32 + NPTL for ARM926EJ-S.
> >
> > Trying to statically link a simple testcase
On 28/11/2011 18.43, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm in the process of building a toolchain with crosstool-ng,
> with uClibc-0.9.32 + NPTL for ARM926EJ-S.
>
> Trying to statically link a simple testcase with NPTL fails:
>
> $ cat t.c
> #include
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
On Nov 28, 2011 6:43 PM, "Johannes Stezenbach" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm in the process of building a toolchain with crosstool-ng,
> with uClibc-0.9.32 + NPTL for ARM926EJ-S.
>
> Trying to statically link a simple testcase with NPTL fails:
>
> $ cat t.c
> #include
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[]
Hi,
I'm in the process of building a toolchain with crosstool-ng,
with uClibc-0.9.32 + NPTL for ARM926EJ-S.
Trying to statically link a simple testcase with NPTL fails:
$ cat t.c
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
return (int)pthread_create;
}
$ arm-linux-gcc -Wall -Os t.c -lp
20 matches
Mail list logo
