On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:40:29PM -0700, Greg Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:07:11PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 03:28:32PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> >
> > > I just tried running the Diablo JDK under -current from yesterday (with
> > > the libm fix from a f
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:07:11PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 03:28:32PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
>
> > I just tried running the Diablo JDK under -current from yesterday (with
> > the libm fix from a few days ago). It does not look good; possibly an
> > issue with both
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 03:28:32PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
I just tried running the Diablo JDK under -current from yesterday (with
the libm fix from a few days ago). It does not look good; possibly an
issue with both the compat libc and native libc being linked in? Maybe
l
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 03:28:32PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> I just tried running the Diablo JDK under -current from yesterday (with
> the libm fix from a few days ago). It does not look good; possibly an
> issue with both the compat libc and native libc being linked in? Maybe
> libm.so is stil
