Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Bryan Kadzban wrote: >> Bryan Kadzban wrote: >>> Poking around in glibc, this *looks* like a bug in it (at least in >>> 2.10.1). >> Filed this bug: >> >> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10262 >> >> Does the patch mentioned there (to glibc) fix the testsuite? It needs >> to be done whether it fixes the tests or not, though (for 32-bit >> builds)... > > Wow. That's really crawling around the innards Bryan.
Heh. And I don't even know for sure if this was the issue causing the testsuite failures. :-P It does really look like a bug, though. (Re: "crawling around the innards": That's what happens when my most recent coding was trying to get signalfd to work on a really old glibc but a fairly new kernel. :-) ) > My observation to their responsiveness to outside bugs is that they will > probably ignore it. Let's hope I'm wrong. Somebody from SuSE seems to have commented. *crossing fingers*... It seems fairly obvious from comparing 32-bit and 64-bit glibc what's wrong with the constants being used, as long as someone actually does that. (I'm just hoping it doesn't get closed as a duplicate of bug 333: "build failures aren't to be reported here".)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
