On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 05:32:47PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
Aurelian has uploaded a new glibc with the fix and informs me that gcc
is currently rebuilding.
Once I conform that
Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
Aurelian has uploaded a new glibc with the fix and informs me that gcc
is currently rebuilding.
Once I conform that the newly built gcc is OK, we can close this issue
and start building packages again.
gcc-4.4 has been rebuilt against the new eglibc. It is
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
Aurelian has uploaded a new glibc with the fix and informs me that gcc
is currently rebuilding.
Once I conform that the newly built gcc is OK, we can close this issue
and start building
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
Next steps:
(1) Wait for testsuite results to finish completely. Verify nothing
has regressed.
No regressions.
(2) Remove changes to gcc package debian/rules2 and re-run validation.
Some regressions caused by
Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, John David Anglin
d...@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca wrote:
While I set out the glibc types exactly as before (binary compatible),
the alignment restrictions were changed subtly.
Excellent debugging!
I have adjusted the glibc lock structure
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, John David Anglin
d...@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca wrote:
While I set out the glibc types exactly as before (binary compatible),
the alignment restrictions were
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 08:17:03AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
Carlos O'Donell a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, John David Anglin
d...@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca wrote:
While I set out the glibc types exactly
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
I can successfully run apt-get with the new libstdc++6 that I just built.
The testsuite result is cleaner:
~~~
FAIL: 29_atomics/atomic_flag/clear/1.c execution test
FAIL: 29_atomics/atomic_flag/test_and_set/explicit.c execution test
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:55:12PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
| 77
| __signbitl
| version status: incompatible
| GLIBCXX_3.4
| type: function
| status:
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:00:59PM -0500, John David Anglin wrote:
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net
wrote:
I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
| 77
| __signbitl
| version status: incompatible
| GLIBCXX_3.4
| type:
The problem appears to have gone away with head. I don't see it with
hpux.
Note that latest version of gcc 4.4 in Debian is built with
--disable-libstdcxx-pch, but the segfault is this present :(
Personally, I don't believe the segfault is related to the FAILs
seen in the libstdc++
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM, John David Anglin
d...@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca wrote:
The problem appears to have gone away with head. I don't see it with
hpux.
Note that latest version of gcc 4.4 in Debian is built with
--disable-libstdcxx-pch, but the segfault is this present :(
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Carlos O'Donell
car...@systemhalted.org wrote:
This happens because the original locale object was created at address
0xbff01c20. However, when apt-get calls std::basic_ioschar,
std::char_traitschar ::init it passes in the address 0xbff01c18.
So we went from a
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Carlos O'Donell
car...@systemhalted.org wrote:
This happens because the original locale object was created at address
0xbff01c20. However, when apt-get calls std::basic_ioschar,
std::char_traitschar ::init it passes in the address 0xbff01c18.
So we went
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, John David Anglin
d...@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca wrote:
While I set out the glibc types exactly as before (binary compatible),
the alignment restrictions were changed subtly.
Excellent debugging!
I have adjusted the glibc lock structure alignments to try and match
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 07:00:26PM -0600, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 20.11.2009 16:44, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarnoaurel...@aurel32.net
wrote:
Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Thu, Nov
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
| 77
| __signbitl
| version status: incompatible
| GLIBCXX_3.4
| type: function
| status: added
If __signbitl is the only failure in the abi_check, then that's
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
| 77
| __signbitl
| version status: incompatible
| GLIBCXX_3.4
| type: function
| status: added
If __signbitl is the only failure in the abi_check,
Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
On 05.11.2009 14:30, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
frankly i do not know what to do next, besides trying to rebuild gcc-4.4
4.4.2-1
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
On 05.11.2009 14:30, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:44:25PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:52:36PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:44:25PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net
wrote:
Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico
On 20.11.2009 16:44, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarnoaurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klosed...@debian.org wrote:
On
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
On 05.11.2009 14:30, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
frankly i do not know what to do next, besides trying to rebuild gcc-4.4
4.4.2-1 with latest eglibc to see
24 matches
Mail list logo
