On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 01:59:48AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:25:25 -0500, > H. S. Teoh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:17:38PM +0100, Johan Walles wrote: > > > H. S. Teoh wrote: > > > >Could this be an architecture-specific problem? I'm on an i386 FYI. > > > > > > Yes, this is IA64 specific. > > [snip] > > > > Actually, I just checked on sparc: it shows a similar peculiarity, > > although not as pronounced: > > > > % grep -r SIGSTKSZ /usr/include > > /usr/include/bits/sigstack.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ 2048 > > /usr/include/bits/sigstack.h:#define SIGSTKSZ 8192 > > /usr/include/asm-sparc64/signal.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ 4096 > > /usr/include/asm-sparc64/signal.h:#define SIGSTKSZ 16384 > > /usr/include/asm-sparc/signal.h:#define MINSIGSTKSZ 4096 > > /usr/include/asm-sparc/signal.h:#define SIGSTKSZ 16384 > > Please read Bdale Garbee and David Mosberger's mail. I attached it. > This is IA-64 stable glibc problem. Sid is already fixed.
Ah, I see. Did you check sparc64 stable too? Is that fixed as well? > I would like to know it's really important or not for stable glibc. [snip] Sorry, I don't know enough about these header files to decide. T -- This sentence is false. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
