Hi Sasha,
bug is closed. It was a stack overflow which is why it
was so difficult to track. Refer to the bug database.
Cheers,
Adam
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 04:56:28PM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> > the good thing is that the binary works! I am, however, still
> > unable t
Hi Adam,
> the good thing is that the binary works! I am, however, still
> unable to produce a binary myself that doesn' crash.
> I've tried to upgrade to glibc 2.1.2 from 2.1.1. I've also tried
> to recompile the whole thing on a Redhat 7.1 beta (Fisher) with kernel
> 2.4.2-ac3 and glibc 2.2
Hi,
the good thing is that the binary works! I am, however, still
unable to produce a binary myself that doesn' crash.
I've tried to upgrade to glibc 2.1.2 from 2.1.1. I've also tried
to recompile the whole thing on a Redhat 7.1 beta (Fisher) with kernel
2.4.2-ac3 and glibc 2.2.1-3 installed and
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Adam Dickmeiss wrote:
> OK, see http://www.php.net/bugs.php?id=9766&edit=1
Thanks.
In order to exclude bugs in the compiler/C library, can you
please give this version a try?
http://schumann.cx/ircg/ircg-2.1-x86-linux.tar.gz
You can replace your thttpd
OK, see http://www.php.net/bugs.php?id=9766&edit=1
Thx
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 08:30:52PM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> > 0x80ef6e5 in irc_cmd_RPL_NAMREPLY (conn=0x8189bb0, msg=0x401f591c)
> > at irc_dispatcher.c:181
> >
Hi,
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x80ef6e5 in irc_cmd_RPL_NAMREPLY (conn=0x8189bb0, msg=0x401f591c)
> at irc_dispatcher.c:181
> 181 {
can you please provide further information by appending it to
the bug report?
What kind of optimization are you
