https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
Carlos O'Donell codon...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #39 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #38)
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #37)
I have restarted rawhide builds and the change seems to be more severe than
I thought originally. The perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #37 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
I have restarted rawhide builds and the change seems to be more severe than I
thought originally. The perl stack is mixing old and rebuilt modules too often
...
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppi...@redhat.com
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #33 from Andreas Krebbel krebb...@de.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #32)
All of this could have been handled by using the compiler to generate a
.gnu.attribute entry for the new ABI when such a structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #35 from Carlos O'Donell codon...@redhat.com ---
Andreas,
I've written up Packaging Changes notes for this in upstream:
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.19#Packaging_Changes
Could you please checkin a note to the 2.19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #36 from Carlos O'Donell codon...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #34)
If all the required perl .so files come from RPMs rebuilding all of them at
once should help. What I don't know is whether perl .so
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
Andreas Krebbel krebb...@de.ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #29 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
Thanks, Andreas, your explanation makes sense. I'm going to dig into the perl
itself first.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #30 from Jeff Law l...@redhat.com ---
Andreas,
Let me make sure I understand. You're saying that code which exchanges
jmp_bufs have to be upgraded in lock-step together or they will (possibly
silently) fail?
In effect what we've
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #31 from Andreas Krebbel krebb...@de.ibm.com ---
Yes.
This is an expected result of the jmpbuf extension. I've tried to minimize the
effect by versioning all the accessor functions but symbol versioning is not
available for data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #32 from Carlos O'Donell codon...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Andreas Krebbel from comment #31)
Yes.
This is an expected result of the jmpbuf extension. I've tried to minimize
the effect by versioning all the accessor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #23 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
(In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #22)
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #20)
and
commit 93a45ff1ca6d459618bb0cf93580c4b2809a4b61
Author: Andreas Krebbel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #24 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
Created attachment 879767
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=879767action=edit
output when running the test with LD_DEBUG=versions
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
Michal Toman mto...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mto...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #26 from Michal Toman mto...@redhat.com ---
Created attachment 879794
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=879794action=edit
backtrace
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #21 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
reduced reproducer
- install F-20
- update glibc from http://fedora.danny.cz/s390/glibc-2.18.90-20.fc21.dh.1/ -
it is glibc-2.18.90-20.fc21 + commit 93a45ff1
- rpmbuild --rebuild
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #22 from Carlos O'Donell codon...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #20)
and
commit 93a45ff1ca6d459618bb0cf93580c4b2809a4b61
Author: Andreas Krebbel kreb...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Date: Tue Jan 7 09:36:31 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||codon...@redhat.com,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #12 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
and also with glibc-2.18.90-27.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #13 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
the last working version is glibc-2.18.90-20.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #14 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz ---
and fails even with glibc-2.19.90-3.fc21, so help is needed
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
Carlos O'Donell codon...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@danny.cz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(d...@danny.cz) |
--- Comment #16 from Dan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #17 from Siddhesh Poyarekar spoya...@redhat.com ---
The upstream resync from 2.18.90-20 to -21 was essentially
glibc-2.18-753-gd5780fe..glibc-2.18-788-g497b1e6. Below are the S/390 specific
commits:
commit
25 matches
Mail list logo
