Bug#956418: src:glibc: Please provide optimized builds for ARMv8.1

2020-05-06 Thread Steve McIntyre
be ambarrassed as you point out the obvious flaw I'm missing...) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com "... the premise [is] that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the huma

Bug#956418: src:glibc: Please provide optimized builds for ARMv8.1

2020-04-22 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 01:08:46PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote: >On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:48:27PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> I think the -moutline-atomics is probably good to enable by default >> once we've got it (gcc 10). that's the suggestion I've heard from gcc >>

Bug#956418: src:glibc: Please provide optimized builds for ARMv8.1

2020-04-22 Thread Steve McIntyre
nions on this matter? It's a good question, and thanks for asking! I definitely think it's worth doing -moutline-atomics, and I'm hoping Steve can share some performance numbers to help convince. :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?

Bug#943798: ld.so: old Arm ABI detection patch causing problems, time to remove?

2019-11-01 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 10:22:14AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >On 2019-10-30 00:17, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Source: glibc >> Version: 2.28-10 >> Severity: important >> >> Hi folks, >> >> It looks like my old Arm ABI detection patch for ld.so is ca

Bug#943798: ld.so: old Arm ABI detection patch causing problems, time to remove?

2019-10-29 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 12:17:20AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >Source: glibc >Version: 2.28-10 >Severity: important > >Hi folks, > >It looks like my old Arm ABI detection patch for ld.so is causing >problems for people using LLVM. I've been contacted by a developer, >

Bug#943798: ld.so: old Arm ABI detection patch causing problems, time to remove?

2019-10-29 Thread Steve McIntyre
Source: glibc Version: 2.28-10 Severity: important Hi folks, It looks like my old Arm ABI detection patch for ld.so is causing problems for people using LLVM. I've been contacted by a developer, referring to a mailing list thread:

Bug#685706: libc-bin: order of /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf

2019-02-11 Thread Steve McIntyre
ot; will all sort before "libc". Should we at least simply rename libc.conf to 00libc.conf to make this bit work? Adding a simple rename for that would seem to be the right answer as a start? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?

Arm ports build machines (was Re: Arch qualification for buster: call for DSA, Security, toolchain concerns)

2018-06-29 Thread Steve McIntyre
/ [2] https://www.cnx-software.com/2017/09/24/gigabyte-synquacer-96boards-enterprise-platform-is-powered-by-socionext-sc2a11-24-core-armv8-soc/) [3] https://www.qualcomm.com/products/qualcomm-centriq-2400-processor [4] https://www.cavium.com/product-thunderx2-arm-processors.html [5] http://open-estua

Re: Bug#851790: installation-reports: DNS not working

2017-01-19 Thread Steve McIntyre
do to fail the build if versions are out of sync, rather than let a broken build through? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com < Aardvark> I dislike C++ to start with. C++11 just seems to be handing rope-creating factories for users to hang multiple instances of themselves.

Bug#822489: armhf ABI detection crashing ldconfig on arm64

2016-04-26 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 12:33:38AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 09:57:00AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > >>Could you please ensure that all the binaries in the archive that still >>needs these patches are rebuilt? > >I'll look again for broken/ol

Bug#822489: armhf ABI detection crashing ldconfig on arm64

2016-04-25 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 09:57:00AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >On 2016-04-25 00:30, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Package: libc6-bin >> Severity: serious >> Version: 2.22-7 >> Tags: patch >> >> Hi folks, >> >> Steev has reported some crashing

Re: Fixing the armhf linker path

2015-12-17 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:04:47AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:30:53PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >>At the beginning of the armhf port the hard-float dynamic linker has >>been chosen to be '/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf/ld-linux.so.3'. However it >>

Re: Fixing the armhf linker path

2015-12-17 Thread Steve McIntyre
f them >migrated to testing. > >Any comments or objections? ACK, this makes sense. I spoke with Adam a while back about doing this. I promised I'd scan the archive for any packages still relying on the old linker path, but I've not got to it yet - sorry. :-/ -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridg

Bug#691173: build bug can lead to locking problems on some arches

2012-10-22 Thread Steve McIntyre
Package: libc6 Version: 2.13-35 Severity: serious Tags: upstream patch Hi folks, Just been directed to the bug discussion at http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13844 In some cases, the (e)glibc build will pick up an incorrect version of lowlevellock.c and this can cause futex

Re: glibc: disabling armhf ldconfig support

2012-07-05 Thread Steve McIntyre
is merged upstream. I'm in the middle of re-working the patch for upstream, but it's slow going at the moment. I'm trying to get reviews for definitions of the PT_ARM_ARCH_EXT segment, and that's been held up. :-( Cheers, -- Steve McIntyresteve.mcint...@linaro.org http

Bug#670597: libc6: /lib/ld-linux.so.3 symlink not set

2012-04-29 Thread Steve McIntyre
need fixing/rebuilding/reinstalling. Shouldn't take too long. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb. -- Steven M. Haflich -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org

Bug#387498: Unable to reproduce - mips/mipsel? 2.4/2.6 kernel difference?

2006-09-30 Thread Steve McIntyre
Mon Apr 3 18:39:05 UTC 2006 mips64 GNU/Linux which might explain it. I don't have any mipsen running 2.4 atm. Camm, can you still reproduce this? Ah, hang on - you reported this on vaughan, which is mips*el*. It seems to be locked down atm, so I can't take a look myself atm on there... -- Steve

Bug#233392: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package libc6

2004-02-24 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:25:52AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: At Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:34:07 -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Steve McIntyre wrote: * Some packages need to have a -common or -doc package split out to contain this common data, and the existing packages that need this data

Bug#233392: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package libc6

2004-02-24 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 11:46:39AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Steve McIntyre wrote: No problem here. The zone info is actually quite small (compressed) within the .deb, not really big enough to warrant the split I was (mistakenly) asking for. Sorry for bothering you and thanks for looking

Bug#233392: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package libc6

2004-02-24 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 12:25:52AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: At Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:34:07 -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Steve McIntyre wrote: * Some packages need to have a -common or -doc package split out to contain this common data, and the existing packages that need this data

Bug#233392: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package libc6

2004-02-24 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 11:46:39AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Steve McIntyre wrote: No problem here. The zone info is actually quite small (compressed) within the .deb, not really big enough to warrant the split I was (mistakenly) asking for. Sorry for bothering you and thanks for looking

Bug#233392: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package libc6

2004-02-17 Thread Steve McIntyre
, please feel free to reply to this bug. If you agree that there's a problem here but need help to fix it: again, feel free to ask... Thanks, -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe

Bug#233391: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package libc6.1

2004-02-17 Thread Steve McIntyre
, then sorry for bothering you. If you wish to discuss this further, please feel free to reply to this bug. If you agree that there's a problem here but need help to fix it: again, feel free to ask... Thanks, -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED

Bug#233390: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package libc0.3

2004-02-17 Thread Steve McIntyre
to reply to this bug. If you agree that there's a problem here but need help to fix it: again, feel free to ask... Thanks, -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact

Bug#233392: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package libc6

2004-02-17 Thread Steve McIntyre
, please feel free to reply to this bug. If you agree that there's a problem here but need help to fix it: again, feel free to ask... Thanks, -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#233390: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package libc0.3

2004-02-17 Thread Steve McIntyre
to reply to this bug. If you agree that there's a problem here but need help to fix it: again, feel free to ask... Thanks, -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED]