In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Russell L. Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bingo!
Thanks guys!
Not so fast there, fella. You're not getting off that easily. ;-)
Could you please try the patch below? It is like the patch that Paul
sent, except it should handle error conditions better.
This
%In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
%Russell L. Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%
% Bingo!
%
% Thanks guys!
%
%Not so fast there, fella. You're not getting off that easily. ;-)
%Could you please try the patch below? It is like the patch that Paul
%sent, except it should handle error conditions
%Could you please try the patch below? It is like the patch that Paul
%sent, except it should handle error conditions better.
%
%This patch is against -current, but I think it will apply cleanly to
%-stable too.
My pleasure. This patch applies cleanly against a two day old
-stable, and
Bingo!
Thanks guys!
Russell
%John Polstra ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
% In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
% Russell L. Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
%
% On a fairly recent -STABLE I am getting this failure:
%
% ld-elf.so.1: assert failed: /usr/src/libexec/rtld-elf/rtld.c:2033
%
% I
Greetings,
On a fairly recent -STABLE I am getting this failure:
ld-elf.so.1: assert failed: /usr/src/libexec/rtld-elf/rtld.c:2033
I assume I'm doing something stupid, however the same code
works on Linux gcc-2.95.2, so I'm looking for what the
difference might be.
The program is an ACE/TAO
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Russell L. Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a fairly recent -STABLE I am getting this failure:
ld-elf.so.1: assert failed: /usr/src/libexec/rtld-elf/rtld.c:2033
I assume I'm doing something stupid, however the same code
works on Linux gcc-2.95.2, so I'm
6 matches
Mail list logo