On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 10:10 AM Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 09:29:22AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > You can verify that nscd is catching the cases you care about by running
> > it in '--debug' mode to let you see the cache invalidation.
>
&
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 3:30 PM Marc Haber wrote:
> adduser still has code to invalidate nscd cache after doing changes to
> the user database. I would like to get rid of this and just document
> that people using nscd should use the provided hook to invalidate their
> nscd cache after creating or
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:12 AM Roman Savochenko
wrote:
> So, we have got such regression, and I have to think about back-using
> Debian 7 on such sort dynamic environments and forget all new ones. :(
>
The primary thing to determine is if this extra memory is due to
application demand or not.
T
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 10:35 AM Michael Stone wrote:
> Per the standard, the C locale is supposed to be a synonym for the POSIX
> locale. Can someone give a quick explanation for why in debian the C
> locale definition is 162k and the POSIX locale is 8k? Shouldn't they be
> identical?
The C/POSIX
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:30 AM Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> Looks like Fedora has C.UTF-8 now, and even backported this change to their
> stable releases:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=902094
>
> They're not upstream, but a good part of distros that are not downstream
> from Debian a
On 10/24/18 4:37 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>>> Carlos, do you agree we have consensus on the Python 3.4 requirement (the
>>> patch <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-10/msg00215.html> to add
>>>
On 10/24/18 1:43 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2018, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel Schepler is working on a native bootstrap approach. As far as I
>>> understand, he natively bootstraps Debian from non-Debian (same
>>> processor archite
On 10/22/18 10:15 AM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:51:25AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> On 2018-10-19 09:47, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> This proposal is to being circulated to all the distribution
>>> maintainers to gain their acceptance s
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Harald Dunkel:
>
> > I am using both systemd and sysvinit-core, but I am not sure which one
> > was active when I ran into this problem.
> >
> > Consider a split DNS setup for a remote network. I had started an IPsec
> > connection to the
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2018-01-24 17:08, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
>> Source: glibc
>> Version: 2.26-4
>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>> amd64 systems can work perfectly without a /lib64 directory. Since I am
>> unlikely to convince you to ship ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Johannes Schultz wrote:
>
>> None of the internal assertions in tzfile.c have to do with low
>> memory, they have to do with logical consistency and expected
>> outcomes.
>
> Okay, so let's look at the stack trace again and where it failed.
> The failing line 779 in
On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Johannes Schultz wrote:
> mktime is supposed to return -1 and, according to cplusplus.com, has a
> no-throw guarantee for C++ code. So even if some internal memory cannot be
> allocated, I expect mktime to return with an error value and not cause a
> SIGABRT.
> I fo
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Michael Meskes wrote:
> A lot of locales (if not all) of countries that follow ISO 8601 have a
> comment saying:
I don't know of any countries that follow all of ISO 8601, so it's
best to start with a singular example and discuss that.
The best place to start is
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> control: forwarded -1 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17980
Semaphore interoperability between two different ABIs has never been
supported. It worked because you were lucky and the implementation was
flawed. To fix the implem
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Fabian Niepelt wrote:
> This is the correct output, the older one contains a test I thought was
> in an endless loop but succeeded after a few minutes.
The glibc maintainers for debian need to review those failures. They
indicate serious deviation from expected be
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Fabian Niepelt wrote:
> I'll be gladly providing additional info if you require it.
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x7f146545e4fa in *__GI___libc_res_nsearch (statp=0x7f14659f7300,
> name=, class=, type=,
> answer=0x7fff6d6c0df0 "2", a
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2015-08-17 15:04, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
>> wrote:
>> >> until there's a better tested and working way to transition
>> >> to ffmpeg
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 07:56 +, Mike Gabriel wrote:
>> The Debian Edu team heavily relies on NIS netgroups coming from
>> LDAP. So any help with this in Debian jessie is highly appreciated!!!
>
> The last time I looked at nscd code I was
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Carlos O'Donell
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>> So this is IMO, the wrong thing to do. You should push the patch into
>>> upstream 2.19 stable and rebase instead of keeping the patch in debian
&
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> So this is IMO, the wrong thing to do. You should push the patch into
>> upstream 2.19 stable and rebase instead of keeping the patch in debian
>> svn. Given the patch is already in upstream master it is OK to commit
>> to 2.19 stable, and
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
>> until there's a better tested and working way to transition
>> to ffmpeg?
>
> This really doesn't have that much to do with the transition to ffmpeg.
> Any other library that (indirectly) links against sufficiently many
> STATIC_TLS usi
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> control: fixed -1 glibc/2.21-0experimental0
>
> On 2015-08-14 18:28, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
>> I believe Debian is missing the following patch for ppc64el:
>> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=a53fbd8e6cd2f6
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
wrote:
> I believe Debian is missing the following patch for ppc64el:
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=a53fbd8e6cd2f69bdfa3431d616a5f332aea6664
Really what should be happening here is that we should backport tha
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> On 20.07.2015 17:18, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
>> wrote:
>>> Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error.
>>> 0xf801cda4 in elf_dyn
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun
wrote:
> Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error.
> 0xf801cda4 in elf_dynamic_do_Rela (skip_ifunc=,
> lazy=0, nrelative=, relsize=,
> reladdr=, map=0xf80100023570) at do-rel.h:111
Usually a corrupted library. Check md5sums.
Cheer
I disagree. IMO the most flexible approach is for glibc to stop using cpuid
for RTM detection and rely on the kernel to tell it if RTM is usable. Then
we have a single hardware blacklist in the kernel. We need to talk to
kernel people about this. Not to mention we might extend a getauxval-type
API
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Pierre Schweitzer wrote:
> When trying to install the latest release of Intel Parallel Studio 2015 onto
> Debian testing,
> I'm facing a segfault. Using GDB, I could isolate the segfault in:
> _dl_signal_error (errcode=errcode@entry=0, objname=objname@entry=0x1814
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> >>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> I can live with that, and I think I can prepare a patch if you want me to.
>
> Here's a minimal patch to glibc that should do it (compile tested).
The GNU C Library onl
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> glibc changes the signature of setrlimit() when _GNU_SOURCE is defined, "to
> provide better error checking":
>
> extern int setrlimit (int, const struct rlimit *); // as specified by POSIX
> extern int setrlimit (__rlimit_resource_t, const s
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:14:42PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> > glibc 2.19 has changed the libc ABI on s390, more specifically the
>> >
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> glibc 2.19 has changed the libc ABI on s390, more specifically the
> setjmp/longjmp functions [1] [2]. Symbol versioning is used to handle
> some cases, but it doesn't work when a jmp_buf variable is embedded
> into a structure, as it change
Related commits the fix the CVE:
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=f2962a71959fd254a7a223437ca4b63b9e81130c
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=34a9094f49241ebb72084c536cf468fd51ebe3ec
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> package: src:e
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Carlos O'Donell (car...@systemhalted.org):
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>> > Quoting Carlos O'Donell (car...@systemhalted.org):
>> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Carlos O'Donell (car...@systemhalted.org):
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Serge Hallyn
>> wrote:
>> > Hi, would a simple patchl ike this to misc/sys/xattr.h be
>> > acceptable? This showed
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Hi, would a simple patchl ike this to misc/sys/xattr.h be
> acceptable? This showed up in a failure to build (of at least
> qemu, and aiui lots of other pkgs) after merging a new libcap2
> where sys/capability.h #included linux/xattr.h. It's
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Philipp Marek wrote:
> Feb 20 10:36:57 cacao kernel: [ 5299.252749] traps: ld-linux-x32.so[25723]
> general protection ip:f7744eed sp:ff7fcec8 error:0 in
> ld-2.17.so[f772e000+21000]
> Feb 20 10:36:57 cacao kernel: [ 5299.296045] traps: ld-linux-x32.so[25737]
>
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> Package: nscd
> Version: 2.17-97
> Severity: important
>
> I can reasonably consistently crash nscd with netgroup lookups. Below is
> the simplest configuration I can reproduce this with:
The caching for netgroups has several bugs which we
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:19 AM, abhiroop dabral wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I followed all the the steps provided on the compilation page
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Configuring-and-compiling.html.
> While configuration I used only one flag which was--prefix=/my directoy.
> After
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Here is the latest version of my list of differences between glibc and
> EGLIBC, classified according to my expectations for what will happen
> to them (whether, and to what extent, they will end up in glibc). We
> are on track for EGLIBC 2
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> during the weekend I built eglibc manually without disabling
> the tests and here’s the result for your perusal.
>
> Cc’ing the porters list in case there’s someone who can do
> something about those failures ;)
Get involv
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Hal BugsBuster wrote:
> I cannot fully explain what I am doing exactly but
> I am working on soft real-time avionic problems and the use of libm2-17
> is ... IMPOSSIBLE since it multiplies by two the duration of all our
> computations...
I'm sorry to hear that, ple
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:10 PM, bugsbuster wrote:
>* What led up to the situation?
Upstream glibc fixed a number of correctness issues in non-default
rounding modes.
These correctness issues had a performance impact which has only just
been fixed in 2.18.
I suggest Debian backport Siddhesh
On 07/18/2013 06:11 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Told you so…
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Subject: apt-listchanges: changelogs for tglase.lan.tarent.de
>
> cyrus-sasl2 (2.1.25.dfsg1-14) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * CVE-2013-4122: Handle NULL returns from glibc 2.17+ crypt()
>
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> At this point, I'd rather we took the opportunity to fix code that makes
> unsafe assumptions about the behavior of crypt than push the problem on
> for users to figure out when a glibc upgrade causes passwords to fail to
> be recognized be
>From the 2.17 NEWS:
* The `crypt' function now fails if passed salt bytes that violate the
specification for those values. On Linux, the `crypt' function will
consult /proc/sys/crypto/fips_enabled to determine if "FIPS mode" is
enabled, and fail on encrypted strings using the MD5 or DES al
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> With Drepper gone, upstream is now interested in a fix, but say they
> aren't likely to get to it anytime soon themselves, and seem to want
> something at least slightly more involved than what Redhat has.
>
> (In particular, they seem to wa
On 02/02/2013 01:28 AM, Sian Mountbatten wrote:
> Dear Maintainers
>
> Is any work being done to translate libc6 messages into Esperanto? I am
> willing to translate a .pot file into
> Esperanto.
>
> Sincerely
>
The GNU C Library uses the Translation Project services
for translation (http://tr
On 9/26/2012 6:07 AM, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> Hello again!
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 03:07:54PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> [...]
>>> Anything someone can help out with?
>>
>> You can build it and try it.
>
> Would like to report that I'm getting test failures
>
> First build these
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Tomas Dohnalek wrote:
> I have started to work on automation of comparing outputs from glibc
> testsuite, because of pointless manual work when new version arrives and we
> want to do as much as possible in upstream. In the beginning of the
> improvement process, w
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM, peter green wrote:
>> Your patch to fix ucontext namespace pollution looks good, please post
>> that to libc-ports for review
>
> should I send it immidiately or should I wait until I have test results to
> give them?
Wait until the test results are complete and y
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:57 AM, peter green wrote:
>> mind also looking at WCHAR_MIN/MAX undefined for arm?
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=598937
>
> They most certainly are defined. The trouble is that WCHAR_MAX is defined
> in a strange way.
>
> #define __WCHAR_MAX ( (w
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:52 PM, peter green wrote:
> From my tests it seems that in both squeeze and sid __USE_XOPEN2K8 gets
> defined by default
> (in ) but __USE_XOPEN does not.
> so this change to the ifdef changed it from "default no" to "default yes"
>
> Reverting the change the ifdef would
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:15 AM, peter green
wrote:
> While renaming the structure would be one soloution to the
> conflicts changing a long standing* interface to solve a
> problem that is arch specific and has only recently become a
> significant issue** seems like a wrong approach to me.
>
> Th
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 6:59 PM, peter green
wrote:
> Do porters and/or glibc maintainers think this should be dealt
> with on the libc6-dev side or should I continue to file patches that deal
> with this issue on the application side?
As an upstream glibc maintainer I would be happy to see this
On 12/7/2011 6:38 AM, Teodor MICU wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to see how bsearch() function is implemented in GNU C
> library. I see that it is declared in but I couldn't find
> the corresponding "stdlib.c" file anywhere in the Debian archive (i.e.
> with "apt-file search stdlib.c").
>
> I've
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:21:05PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Aurelian,
>>
>> Could you please cherry-pick this patch into glibc?
>>
>> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc-ports.git;a=commit;h=36
Aurelian,
Could you please cherry-pick this patch into glibc?
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc-ports.git;a=commit;h=3680f14a7d12a9faa86e09aaea1b3aa20713355e
~~~
commit 3680f14a7d12a9faa86e09aaea1b3aa20713355e
Author: Carlos O'Donell
Date: Thu Jun 24 12:13:36 2010 -0400
[hppa
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> (1) tstdiomisc - Mark as expected fail until the compiler is fixed.
>>
>> (2) tst-vfork1 - Kernel issue, mark this and tst-vfork2 as expected
>> fail until the kernel is fixed
>>
>> (3) tststatic - Fixed by attached patch.
>>
>> (4) tststat
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Carlos O'Donell
wrote:
> I am still analyzing (3), (4) and (5) which appears to be related.
A bit of background...
In glibc/elf/dl-fptr.c the global variable "local" references itself
by taking the address of &local.boot_table. Computing t
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Carlos O'Donell
wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
>> block 573991 by 561203
>> quit
>>
>> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 09:17:26AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> Test (1) is a compiler bug inv
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Clint Adams wrote:
> block 573991 by 561203
> quit
>
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 09:17:26AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Test (1) is a compiler bug involving the multiplication of -1 * NAN.
>> The compiler defect causes the t
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Carlos O'Donell
wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Any progress on that? We are approaching the transition freeze deadline,
>> so we will need to upload eglibc 2.11 to unstable really soon now.
>
> Sorr
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Any progress on that? We are approaching the transition freeze deadline,
> so we will need to upload eglibc 2.11 to unstable really soon now.
Sorry, I forgot to send out an update. I made some progress
understanding the one of the failures,
Aurelien,
This email is just to inform you that the debian glibc regressions are
at the top of my priority list for the debian-hppa port. I am working
exclusively on this problem, but I have not yet made any good
progress. I will continue to work on this problem until we are back to
the existing l
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 AM, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> I am looking the file:
> eglibc-2.10.2/ports/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/hppa/nptl/sysdep-cancel.h
>
> It doesn't have any cfi directives. I think that it is the cause
> of this problem.
>
> When adding cfi directives, it would be good to add noc
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
> Package: glibc-doc
> Version: 2.7-18lenny2
>
> Manual page of pthread_create(3) mentions about a not-existing constant,
> PTHREADS_THREADS_MAX.
>
> I am using Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.3, with a custom 2.6.26-2-686 kernel and
> libc6 2.7-18.
See:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
> What's the status of this bug? It's holding the KDE transition which is
> blocking the Xorg and python transitions...
I'm working on this bug. The current status is "under investigation."
I don't have a good idea of what is going on or why it's
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> when investigating this issue further, I determined that fork() following
> pthread_create() sometimes makes the application crash. In order to reproduce,
> build attached minifail.cpp with:
>
> $ g++ -I/usr/include/qt4 -lQtCore minifail.c
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell
> wrote:
>> Always the same crash for all the failures I've looked at. Hopefully
>> this is something trivial that was missed.
>
> The cu
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Carlos O'Donell
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> looking at the gcc-4.4 g++/libstdc++ test results I see regressions as well;
>> is this reproducible for you?
>
> What regressions are you seeing?
>
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> looking at the gcc-4.4 g++/libstdc++ test results I see regressions as well;
> is this reproducible for you?
What regressions are you seeing?
I have a check-g++ running right now against glibc 2.10.1-0exp2. I'll
comment when this is done.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, sobtwmxt wrote:
>> 2.9.27 changelog.Debian contains
>>
>> Strip *.o files manually (dh_strip does not do it) to prevent
>> leakage of the build directory.
>>
>
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, sobtwmxt wrote:
> 2.9.27 changelog.Debian contains
>
> Strip *.o files manually (dh_strip does not do it) to prevent
> leakage of the build directory.
>
> Can you send me the code that does that? I will probably only open a
> bug at dh_strip to include it.
Ple
On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Always the same crash for all the failures I've looked at. Hopefully
> this is something trivial that was missed.
The current libc is missing my patches to fix pthread_attr_setstack()
and pthread_attr_getstack() for h
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Carlos O'Donell
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Hi HPPA porters,
>>
>> Could someone please have a look at this problem? It seems to be due to
>> the NPTL switch.
>
> I'm already looking
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Hi HPPA porters,
>
> Could someone please have a look at this problem? It seems to be due to
> the NPTL switch.
I'm already looking at the gcj breakage so I'll have a look at this. Thanks.
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deb
Aurelian,
The following patches implement version 2 of the NPTL upgrade for
hppa. This second version is a rewrite of internal pthread structures
and is 100% ABI backwards compatible. All old applications will run
with the new glibc, including during partial upgrades.
I have tested the following
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 10:09:22AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > i think the question was one about packaging rather than general use ? if
>> >
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i think the question was one about packaging rather than general use ? if you
> build a package against a newer glibc version but it only uses older symbols,
> then in theory it should work fine with older glibc versions. if the symbol
> cha
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Frans Pop a écrit :
>> Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>> In practice it shouldn't be problem at all.
>>>> Debian should make sure that binary/library compiled
>>>> against NPTL-hppa-glibc wi
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
> Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> In practice it shouldn't be problem at all.
>>> Debian should make sure that binary/library compiled
>>> against NPTL-hppa-glibc will require NPTL-hppa-glibc
>>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Petr Salinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
>> I spent the last two days rewriting the pthread structure layouts for
>> hppa's nptl implementation.
>
> It looks very nice and promising now, thanks.
>
>> I was able to restructure both pthread_mutex_t, and pthread_rwlock_t to be
>>
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> [Changing debian-bsd to debian-glibc, probably more appropriate to
> discuss about the internal glibc code ;-)]
>> > may I ask you for status of hppa nptl switch ?
Petr, Aurelian,
I spent the last two days rewriting the pthread structure la
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Patrick M. Rutkowski wrote:
> I'm confused about the purpose of the libc6-dbg package if I every
> time I try to step into a libc function I get an error about missing
> source files.
>
> What is this package good for if not stepping into libc code?
The package is
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:40:32AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> Aurelian,
>>>
>>> Is there a debian libc6 2.10 somewhere? I see u
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:51 AM, aXqd wrote:
> I don't know if I misunderstand the purpose of this mail-list. But I
> don't know somewhere else to ask.
This is not the right place to ask. The correct place is
libc-h...@sourceware.org, the GNU C Library help mailing list (added
to the CC). This lis
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> GFDL *without* invariant sections -> free
> GFDL *with* invariant sections -> non-free
Thanks.
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas..
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:40:32AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Aurelian,
>>
>> Is there a debian libc6 2.10 somewhere? I see unstable has 2.9.
>
> My plan is to upload it to experimental once it build
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The GFDL instead is not considered non-free, but the GFDL *with*
> invariant sections is considered non-free.
Sorry, I don't follow, I assume you meant to write "free" somwhere
instead of "non-free?"
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Aurelian,
Is there a debian libc6 2.10 somewhere? I see unstable has 2.9.
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 09:28:21AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> I'm a debian-hppa porter, and I was building the most recent libc6
>> from unstable when I noticed:
>>
>> ~~~
>> configure: W
I'm a debian-hppa porter, and I was building the most recent libc6
from unstable when I noticed:
~~~
configure: WARNING:
*** These auxiliary programs are missing or incompatible versions: makeinfo
*** some features will be disabled.
*** Check the INSTALL file for required versions.
~~~
During gli
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I propose these as recommended guidelines for all release branch managers:
>
> 1. Don't talk about recommended guidelines for all release branch managers.
> No, wait, do talk about them.
> Don't suspect your neighbor. Discuss him on libc
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I have problems to backport your patches to 2.9 (though I haven't try
> very hard). As glibc 2.10 is going to be released soon, I think the best
> is actually to package a snapshot of the current CVS, add your patches,
> and upload it to exp
ompat.diff
> Modified:
> glibc-package/trunk/debian/changelog
> glibc-package/trunk/debian/patches/series
> Log:
> * patches/any/local-csu-init.diff, patches/hppa/local-nptl-compat.diff:
> new patches from Carlos O'Donell to add a compatibility layer for
> binar
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm desperately trying to debug something for which I need
> to be able to step into the libc6 source code, especially
> libpthread.
>
> I installed the -dbg package but it contains no line
> numbers?!
>
> Can some
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand all that, but the question still stands: is the compiler
> really moving a memory write past a memory barrier? ISTR we did have
> a discussion on gcc-list about that, but it was a while ago and should
> now be
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've seen this on-and-off again on the hppa-linux port. The issue has,
>> in my experience, been a compiler problem. My standard operating
>> procedure is to methodically add volatile to the atomic.h operations
>> until it
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there anything from an outsider that could help?
I've seen this on-and-off again on the hppa-linux port. The issue has,
in my experience, been a compiler problem. My standard operating
procedure is to methodically add v
1 - 100 of 349 matches
Mail list logo
