Re: armhf SIGILL, Illegal Instruction

2021-09-29 Thread peter green
On 29/09/2021 23:39, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:05 PM peter green wrote: As I understand it, there are two variants of "VFPv3", a version with 32 double registers (d0 to d31) and a version with only 16 double registers (d0 to d16). The former is reffered to by gcc as

Re: armhf SIGILL, Illegal Instruction

2021-09-29 Thread Jeffrey Walton
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:05 PM peter green wrote: > > As I understand it, there are two variants of "VFPv3", a version with 32 > double registers (d0 to d31) and a version with only 16 double registers (d0 > to d16). > The former is reffered to by gcc as "vfpv3" while the latter is reffered to

Re: armhf SIGILL, Illegal Instruction

2021-09-29 Thread peter green
As I understand it, there are two variants of "VFPv3", a version with 32 double registers (d0 to d31) and a version with only 16 double registers (d0 to d16). The former is reffered to by gcc as "vfpv3" while the latter is reffered to by gcc as "vfpv3_d16". Debian is supposed to support

Re: armhf SIGILL, Illegal Instruction

2021-09-29 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hi Jeffrey! On 9/29/21 22:28, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > I think John Paul Adrian Glaubitz (with the help of others) on the > PowerPC mailing list determined that Autools is the problem. Autotools > is using an M4 macro that is selecting the wrong platform or features. > It is new behavior. > >

Re: armhf SIGILL, Illegal Instruction

2021-09-29 Thread Jeffrey Walton
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:06 PM Ash Hughes wrote: > > Hi, > > I've been getting some programs terminated with SIGILL today, and I'm > trying to find out if this is a package issue or if Debian (Bullseye) is > no longer compatible with my ARM machine. I first got an error with > onedrive, with gdb