On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:23:27PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 08:05, bert hubert wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:40:26AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> >
> > > works well. (This bug may be introduced in 2003-07-15 Uli's
> > > modification for misc/syslog.c. I guess
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:23:27PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 08:05, bert hubert wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:40:26AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> >
> > > works well. (This bug may be introduced in 2003-07-15 Uli's
> > > modification for misc/syslog.c. I guess
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:23:27PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > Might it be an idea to kick this one upstream?
>
> Possibly, though I'm not sure which upstream. Since it's blowing up
> during unwinding, that would suggest that either the unwind tables are
> damaged, or the unwinder itself is
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:23:27PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > Might it be an idea to kick this one upstream?
>
> Possibly, though I'm not sure which upstream. Since it's blowing up
> during unwinding, that would suggest that either the unwind tables are
> damaged, or the unwinder itself is
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 08:05, bert hubert wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:40:26AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > works well. (This bug may be introduced in 2003-07-15 Uli's
> > modification for misc/syslog.c. I guess it's modified for one of libc
> > cancelation works. But no confidence.)
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 08:05, bert hubert wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:40:26AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > works well. (This bug may be introduced in 2003-07-15 Uli's
> > modification for misc/syslog.c. I guess it's modified for one of libc
> > cancelation works. But no confidence.)
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:40:26AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> works well. (This bug may be introduced in 2003-07-15 Uli's
> modification for misc/syslog.c. I guess it's modified for one of libc
> cancelation works. But no confidence.)
Might it be an idea to kick this one upstream?
--
http
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 12:40:26AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> works well. (This bug may be introduced in 2003-07-15 Uli's
> modification for misc/syslog.c. I guess it's modified for one of libc
> cancelation works. But no confidence.)
Might it be an idea to kick this one upstream?
--
http
At Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:44:54 +0200,
bert hubert wrote:
> After comparing notes and retrying on g++-2.95.2, g++-3.2 and g++-3.3 and
> seeing the bug in all places, Wichert Akkerman suggested reassigning the bug
> to libc6 and changing its severity to 'serious'.
>
> The problem shows on stock debian
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:13:44AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:54PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> > The problem does not show on SuSE or Red Hat, but does plague Debian with
> > very very new glibc + nptl, suggesting either something rotten with recent
> > glibc's or pro
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:13:44AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:54PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
>
> > The problem does not show on SuSE or Red Hat, but does plague Debian with
> > very very new glibc + nptl, suggesting either something rotten with recent
> > glibc's or
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:54PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> The problem does not show on SuSE or Red Hat, but does plague Debian with
> very very new glibc + nptl, suggesting either something rotten with recent
> glibc's or problems on a more fundamental level.
If you've got NPTL on your syste
At Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:44:54 +0200,
bert hubert wrote:
> After comparing notes and retrying on g++-2.95.2, g++-3.2 and g++-3.3 and
> seeing the bug in all places, Wichert Akkerman suggested reassigning the bug
> to libc6 and changing its severity to 'serious'.
>
> The problem shows on stock debian
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:13:44AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:54PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> > The problem does not show on SuSE or Red Hat, but does plague Debian with
> > very very new glibc + nptl, suggesting either something rotten with recent
> > glibc's or pro
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:13:44AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:54PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
>
> > The problem does not show on SuSE or Red Hat, but does plague Debian with
> > very very new glibc + nptl, suggesting either something rotten with recent
> > glibc's or
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:54PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> The problem does not show on SuSE or Red Hat, but does plague Debian with
> very very new glibc + nptl, suggesting either something rotten with recent
> glibc's or problems on a more fundamental level.
If you've got NPTL on your syste
After comparing notes and retrying on g++-2.95.2, g++-3.2 and g++-3.3 and
seeing the bug in all places, Wichert Akkerman suggested reassigning the bug
to libc6 and changing its severity to 'serious'.
The problem shows on stock debian sid.
The problem does not show on SuSE or Red Hat, but does pla
After comparing notes and retrying on g++-2.95.2, g++-3.2 and g++-3.3 and
seeing the bug in all places, Wichert Akkerman suggested reassigning the bug
to libc6 and changing its severity to 'serious'.
The problem shows on stock debian sid.
The problem does not show on SuSE or Red Hat, but does pla
18 matches
Mail list logo
