On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ok, I missed one important bit of info. Plus, MARC archives when searching
> for
> author don't support restricting to one ML. So, here's the link to the
> discussion within UML-devel. Which is just a pointer to the issue (he surely
> doesn't expl
On Monday 26 June 2006 18:26, Nix wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake:
> > On Sunday 25 June 2006 21:19, Nix wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] announced authoritatively:
> >> > On Wednesday 21 June 2006 21:38, Nix wrote:
> >>
> >> [jmp_buf goes hidden]
> >>
> >> >
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake:
> On Sunday 25 June 2006 21:19, Nix wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] announced authoritatively:
>> > On Wednesday 21 June 2006 21:38, Nix wrote:
>>
>> [jmp_buf goes hidden]
>
>> > I made the same thought, but no, they have *already* cha
On Sunday 25 June 2006 21:19, Nix wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] announced authoritatively:
> > On Wednesday 21 June 2006 21:38, Nix wrote:
>
> [jmp_buf goes hidden]
> > I made the same thought, but no, they have *already* changed it.
> > Search for the message from Ulrich Drepper
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] announced authoritatively:
> On Wednesday 21 June 2006 21:38, Nix wrote:
[jmp_buf goes hidden]
>> This vile patch lets me compile but is almost certainly not good enough:
>> however, I don't know what *is* good enough: now that glibc is blocking
>> us from the
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 21:38, Nix wrote:
> The problem is that arch/um/os-Linux/sys-i386/registers.c
> messes around inside a jmp_buf, and in glibc 2.4 the glibc
> maintainers have helpfully removed the definitions that
> let you poke around in there (they were only there for the
> sake of one m
