Re: Seeking clarification for nscd invalidation

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. > > I regret to

Re: Seeking clarification for nscd 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

Bug#934080: [libc6] Significant degradation in the memory effectivity of the memory allocator

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.

Re: C + POSIX locale question

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

Bug#874160: Fedora has C.UTF-8

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

Re: Propose requiring Python 3.4 or later for building glibc.

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 >>> that

Re: Propose requiring Python 3.4 or later for building glibc.

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

Re: Propose requiring Python 3.4 or later for building glibc.

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 surrou

Bug#895981: please cleanup /var/cache/nscd on restart

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

Bug#888073: glibc: Support amd64 systems without /lib64

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

Bug#867283: Crash in glibc's mktime in low-memory situations

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. >

Bug#867283: Crash in glibc's mktime in low-memory situations

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

Re: Locales question

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

Bug#816742: libc6: sem_post/sem_wait not working for 32bit to 64bit inter-process communication

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

Bug#815974: Segmentation fault in libresolv triggered by php5-fpm

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

Bug#815974: Segmentation fault in libresolv triggered by php5-fpm

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=, >

Bug#793641: glibc: too few static TLS slots

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> wrote: > On 2015-08-17 15:04, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun >> <andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> until there's a bett

Bug#737079: nscd crashes on netgroup lookups

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

Bug#794222: Missing patch

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net 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

Bug#794222: Missing patch

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net 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

Bug#794222: Missing patch

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net 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:

Bug#793641: glibc: too few static TLS slots

On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com 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

Bug#794222: Missing patch

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho tul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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

Bug#792921: [sparc64] linking against libx264 crashes runtime linker

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote: On 20.07.2015 17:18, Carlos O'Donell wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote: Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error. 0xf801cda4

Bug#792921: [sparc64] linking against libx264 crashes runtime linker

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Andreas Cadhalpun andreas.cadhal...@googlemail.com wrote: Program received signal SIGBUS, Bus error. 0xf801cda4 in elf_dynamic_do_Rela (skip_ifunc=optimized out, lazy=0, nrelative=optimized out, relsize=optimized out, reladdr=optimized out,

Bug#762195: libc6: libpthread: hardware-assisted lock elision hazardous on x86

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

Bug#762455: libc6: SIGSEV in _dl_signal_error() (dl-error.c:94)

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Pierre Schweitzer pie...@reactos.org 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,

Bug#762195: libc6: libpthread: hardware-assisted lock elision hazardous on x86

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org 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

Bug#762195: libc6: libpthread: hardware-assisted lock elision hazardous on x86

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: I can live

Bug#758911: libc6-dev: spurious sign-conversion warning for setrlimit, clang 3.5, _GNU_SOURCE

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com 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

Re: Handling s390 libc ABI change in Debian

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org 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 aure...@debian.org wrote: glibc 2.19 has changed the libc ABI on s390, more specifically the setjmp

Re: Handling s390 libc ABI change in Debian

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org 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

Bug#742925: eglibc: CVE-2013-4357

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 mgilb...@debian.org

Re: xattr.h wonkiness

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com wrote: Quoting Carlos O'Donell (car...@systemhalted.org): On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com wrote: Hi, would a simple patchl ike this to misc/sys/xattr.h be acceptable? This showed up

Re: xattr.h wonkiness

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com wrote: Quoting Carlos O'Donell (car...@systemhalted.org): On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com wrote: Quoting Carlos O'Donell (car...@systemhalted.org): On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Re: xattr.h wonkiness

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Serge Hallyn serge.hal...@ubuntu.com 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

Bug#722348: same problem

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Philipp Marek philipp.ma...@linbit.com 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:

Bug#737079: nscd crashes on netgroup lookups

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Arthur de Jong adej...@debian.org 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

Re: Error while building eglibc on ubuntu 12.10 64bit

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:19 AM, abhiroop dabral abhiroo...@yahoo.com 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

Re: [Patches] Status of remaining glibc/EGLIBC differences 2013-11-06

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com 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

Re: New “expected” testsuite failures for eglibc on m68k?

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Thorsten Glaser t.gla...@tarent.de 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 ;)

Bug#718577: libc6: Libc6/libm-2.17 almost two times slower than 2.13 in trigonometric calculations

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:10 PM, bugsbuster hal.bugsbus...@gmail.com 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

Bug#718577: libc6: Libc6/libm-2.17 almost two times slower than 2.13 in trigonometric calculations

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Hal BugsBuster hal.bugsbus...@gmail.com 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

Bug#714219: #714219 - libc6: crypt(3) returns NULL… told you so

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()

Re: Bug#714219: [Debian #714219] libc6: crypt(3) returns NULL with EINVAL instead of falling back to DES, breaking GNU software

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Alexandre Oliva aol...@redhat.com 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

Bug#714219: libc6: crypt(3) returns NULL with EINVAL instead of falling back to DES, breaking GNU software

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

Bug#711913: libc6: ld.so falsely claims the vDSO comes from a file

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Samuel Bronson naes...@gmail.com 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,

Re: Libc6 messages in Esperanto

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

Bug#672934: tagging 672934

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 tests failed:

Re: glibc testsuite improvement

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Tomas Dohnalek tdohn...@redhat.com 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

Re: struct user conflicts on arm

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 7:57 AM, peter green plugw...@p10link.net 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

Re: struct user conflicts on armel and armfh

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:15 AM, peter green peter.gr...@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk 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

Re: struct user conflicts on armel and armfh

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:52 PM, peter green plugw...@p10link.net 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

Re: Where can I find stdlib.c to check the bsearch() implementation?

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 stdlib.h 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

HPPA patches for the next debian-glibc release.

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 car...@systemhalted.org Date: Thu Jun 24 12:13:36 2010

Re: HPPA patches for the next debian-glibc release.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org 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

Re: Regressions when building glibc for HPPA.

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org 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)

Re: Regressions when building glibc for HPPA.

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Clint Adams sch...@debian.org 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 test to fail. The actual

Re: Regressions when building glibc for HPPA.

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org wrote: On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Clint Adams sch...@debian.org 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

Re: Regressions when building glibc for HPPA.

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org 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

Re: Regressions when building glibc for HPPA.

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org wrote: On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org 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

Re: Regressions when building glibc for HPPA.

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Aurelien Jarno aure...@debian.org 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

Regressions when building glibc for HPPA.

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

Bug#575351: [HPPA] This is not the bug of GCC but glibc

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:28 AM, NIIBE Yutaka gni...@fsij.org 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

Re: Unknown PTHREADS_THREADS_MAX symbol in pthread_create(3)

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Volkan YAZICI yazic...@ttmail.com 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

Bug#561203: Re: Bug#561203: FTBFS [hppa] - pthread_create() (QThread) + fork() = crash

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org 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

Bug#561203: FTBFS [hppa] - pthread_create() (QThread) + fork() = crash

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Modestas Vainius modes...@vainius.eu 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

Bug#553722: almost all execution test in gcj-4.4 broken with eglibc-2.10.1-3 on hppa

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org wrote: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org wrote: Always the same crash for all the failures I've looked at. Hopefully this is something trivial that was missed. The current libc

Bug#553722: almost all execution test in gcj-4.4 broken with eglibc-2.10.1-3 on hppa

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org 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

Bug#553722: almost all execution test in gcj-4.4 broken with eglibc-2.10.1-3 on hppa

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org 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

Re: Strip *.o files manually (dh_strip does not do it)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, sobtwmxt sobtw...@sdf.lonestar.org 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

Re: Strip *.o files manually (dh_strip does not do it)

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, sobtwmxt sobtw...@sdf.lonestar.org 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

Bug#553722: almost all execution test in gcj-4.4 broken with eglibc-2.10.1-3 on hppa

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net 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

Bug#553722: almost all execution test in gcj-4.4 broken with eglibc-2.10.1-3 on hppa

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Carlos O'Donell car...@systemhalted.org 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

Bug#553722: almost all execution test in gcj-4.4 broken with eglibc-2.10.1-3 on hppa

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net 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

Transition hppa from linuxthreads to nptl is ready to proceed.

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

Re: hppa nptl switch

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Mike Frysingervap...@gentoo.org 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

Re: hppa nptl switch

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Aurelien Jarnoaurel...@aurel32.net 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 Frysingervap...@gentoo.org wrote: i think the question was one about packaging rather than general use ?  if you

Re: hppa nptl switch

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aurelien Jarnoaurel...@aurel32.net 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 will require NPTL-hppa-glibc by proper Depends: line

Re: hppa nptl switch

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Petr Salingerpetr.salin...@seznam.cz 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

Re: hppa nptl switch

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Frans Popelen...@planet.nl 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 by proper Depends: line like libc6 (= 2.10). Does

Re: hppa nptl switch

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Aurelien Jarnoaurel...@aurel32.net 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

Re: Purpose

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Patrick M. Rutkowskirutsk...@gmail.com 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?

Re: static linking to an older glibc

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:51 AM, aXqdaxqd...@gmail.com 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

Re: libc6 2.10?

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Carlos O'Donellcar...@systemhalted.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Aurelien Jarnoaure...@debian.org 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

Makeinfo version parsing broken?

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

Re: Makeinfo version parsing broken?

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Aurelien Jarnoaurel...@aurel32.net 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: WARNING: *** These auxiliary programs

libc6 2.10?

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

Re: Makeinfo version parsing broken?

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Aurelien Jarnoaurel...@aurel32.net 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

Re: Makeinfo version parsing broken?

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Aurelien Jarnoaurel...@aurel32.net 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?

Re: glibc release branch procedures

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Roland McGrathrol...@redhat.com 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.  

Re: r3403 - in glibc-package/trunk/debian: . patches patches/any patches/hppa

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net 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

Re: r3403 - in glibc-package/trunk/debian: . patches patches/any patches/hppa

-compat.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    binaries built against linuxthreads. What

Re: How can I 'step into libc' with gdb?

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 someone give me

Bug#479952: libc6/s390 - __pthread_mutex_lock: Assertion `mutex-__data.__owner == 0' failed.

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

Bug#479952: libc6/s390 - __pthread_mutex_lock: Assertion `mutex-__data.__owner == 0' failed.

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 goes

Bug#479952: libc6/s390 - __pthread_mutex_lock: Assertion `mutex-__data.__owner == 0' failed.

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

Re: dirname() trailing slash Segfault bug

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Mirsad Todorovac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have came across a bug in dirname() function of GNU libc. It is triggered by the following minimal source: #include stdio.h #include string.h int main (int argc, char *argv[]) { char *buf = usr/;

Bug#489906: glibc: tst-regex fails on hppa

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those that are not on IRC, I have made a lot of progress on this bug. The problem comes from the patch any/cvs-strerror_r.diff. However, this patch looks ok, actually comes from upstream and fix a bug. It seems it

Bug#489906: glibc: tst-regex fails on hppa

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Package: libc6 Version: 2.7-12 Severity: critical tst-regex fails on hppa, which IMHO is not something acceptable for a release architecture. -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable

  1   2   3   >