Re: CVS version doesn't boot for me

> > > The changes I made related to versioning went into glibc (2.2) on > 2000-03-30 or thereabouts and into hurd/libthreads at about the same time. > It is not too surprising to have a problem with an old glibc and a new > hurd. I am not able to do any real hacking or even much code-reading thes

Re: Bug#60807: fgetpos() fails on read only filesystems

> The attached program gives EROFS at fgetpos() when called with FILE being > on a read-only filesystem. I had no debug symbols installed, so I didn't > track it down any further yet. From reading the stdio/fgetpos.c and ftell.c, > I couldn't see how the filesystem was accessed even. > > Hello Ma

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

Roland McGrath wrote: > > All the calls to mach_task_self() are mapped by the defines to simple > > variable __mach_task_self. There is no funtion call to initialise the > > variable. I have run nm though the object on both new Hurd and old Hurd, > > to show this. > > The initialization happens

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

I can tell you how to fix this bug; but the attached fragment of code is probably in the wrong place. All the calls to mach_task_self() are mapped by the defines to simple variable __mach_task_self. There is no funtion call to initialise the variable. I have run nm though the object on both ne

Re: Hurd user survey

Gordon Matzigkeit wrote: > I'm taking an informal survey of people who use the Hurd, to get some > idea of how things are progressing. Please reply to me privately, or > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as appropriate. > > 1) Have you successfully gotten the Hurd running? > Yes, struggled for several weeks

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

> Have tried various starting points, new Hurd installed or old Hurd > installed. Have tried rebuilding gcc, nice to see make compare > work. With or without -O3, the fault remains the same > > new proc and new libports.so.0.2 fails > > Other permutations work > > Chris

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

PS Early results show that: new proc and new libports.so.0.2 fails Other permutations work Chris

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

Chris Lingard wrote: > Have rebuilt the new Hurd with gcc-2.95.2. Removed all compiler > optimisation, it made no difference, it still fails; exactly the same fault > with proc. Will try something else tomorrow. > And tomorrow has come; and now I am totally confused. Messe

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

Have rebuilt the new Hurd with gcc-2.95.2. Removed all compiler optimisation, it made no difference, it still fails; exactly the same fault with proc. Will try something else tomorrow. Chris

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

Hello I am too new to offer any suggestions as to cause of this bug. If anyone want to post a patch to either test a cure, or to output further diagnosics please post them. I have the latest source and both compilers, so a test is trivial. I can test anything on offer. Chris

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

Hello Marcus, Roland pointed out what I should have done; attached is a better report (I hope). Debugging operating systems is new to me, I better read the man pages and a book. Chris root78 p3 S 0:00.07 boot -d -I -Tdevice /boot/servers.boot hd1s1 - 79 ? Sp0:00.13

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

> > > > > fetch inferior registers: 1: Invalid thread > > This is never that useful a command. Do `info threads' here. > gdb does Attaching to program `/hurd/proc', pid 99 warning: Can't modify tracing state for pid 99: No signal thread fetch inferior registers: 1: Invalid thread (gdb) info

Re: Proc failure with gcc-2.95.2

> Firstly, let me verify what we are dealing with. It was only hurd that you > recompiled with the new gcc, not glibc, right? Yes, just compiling the Hurd. The source that I have been using is fairly old; so last Friday I had the chance to download a completely fresh version. Have the standard